TEST

[Kalkidas]

What happened to talk.origins? Haven't seen a message since July 6, neither on Google nor eternal-september.

[Kalkidas]

Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.

Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.

Ray

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray, the group was down for everyone, including those of us using
'newsreader".

Andre

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

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/18/17 2:11 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>
>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Ray, the group was down for everyone, including those of us using
> 'newsreader".

You don't understand, Andre. In Ray's world, *everything that happens*
is proof positive of something he already believes. There's no point
arguing otherwise, because your very act of arguing is proof positive
that Ray is right. (If you fail to argue, that is equally proof
positive that Ray is right, but it takes less toll on your equanimity
and time.)

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

[Richard Clayton]

And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
(Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Andre G. Isaak <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
> In article <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>,

> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>

>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>

>> Ray
>
> Ray, the group was down for everyone, including those of us using
> 'newsreader".
>

I was channeling it via my third eye. Too bad the rest of you lack this
special ability. One doesn't need to be a prognosticator to predict Ray's
ill informed "private circuit" trope.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>

>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>

> And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
> (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>

Beagle is "private circuit"? Didn't DIG migrate it to Amazon cloud? Amazon
is publicly traded though not a government entity. University of Toronto (=
Larry's office?) is a public institution. Hmmm. And Ray could post on other
newsgroups. Were they inside charmed circle of computer nerd's private
circuit.

Some newsreaders are free and others nominally priced. Same with server
accounts. I guess the one point of access to internet (and in Ray's case
the web) that makes or breaks access based on ability to afford is ISP. ISP
could be construed as private circuit in great digital divide, but there
are public computers that can be accessed at libraries and free wifi
elsewhere.

I think Ray's ability to post to usenet and especially t.o. Is a textbook
example of what is called a "first world problem" as is my frustrating
smartphone keyboard being difficult sometimes to type.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_problem

[dale]

threading still broken

--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>

> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>

Right here you continue to troll the group with your nonsensical "private
circuit" trope which betrays your ignorance. How is you posting from a web
based portal in Google Groups any different from someone using free
newsreader/server access? Sure there is a learning curve in using a
newsreader. Does that make it "private circuit"? There are many free
newsreaders. Other cost a little. And there are free and paid servers. But
PCs, smartphones, word processing software and Netflix subscriptions cost
money. Access to internet and web cost money paid to ISPs. There are many
potential choke points to successful usenet posting.

This incident affected my using a phone as much as you however you access
usenet. It was a server issue consequent to Larry Moran's retirement and
DIG making new arrangements to host the robomod. Things change and shit
happens. In a nutshell, you were wrong, not that you could justify your
assertion based on a modicum of technical knowledge nor admit your
ignorance how usenet works.

[*Hemidactylus*]

dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> On 7/18/17 8:21 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>>

>>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>>

>>> And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
>>> (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>>>
>> Beagle is "private circuit"? Didn't DIG migrate it to Amazon cloud? Amazon
>> is publicly traded though not a government entity. University of Toronto (=
>> Larry's office?) is a public institution. Hmmm. And Ray could post on other
>> newsgroups. Were they inside charmed circle of computer nerd's private
>> circuit.
>>
>> Some newsreaders are free and others nominally priced. Same with server
>> accounts. I guess the one point of access to internet (and in Ray's case
>> the web) that makes or breaks access based on ability to afford is ISP. ISP
>> could be construed as private circuit in great digital divide, but there
>> are public computers that can be accessed at libraries and free wifi
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> I think Ray's ability to post to usenet and especially t.o. Is a textbook
>> example of what is called a "first world problem" as is my frustrating
>> smartphone keyboard being difficult sometimes to type.
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_problem
>>
>
> threading still broken
>

That doesn't really affect me much. At least posting has returned. And DIG
was nice enough to make arrangements for migration from Larry's office.

[Ray Martinez]

I have a long and verifiable record of acknowledging errors and mistakes concerning topic, Mark. So you are way too worked up over nothing.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was not. Moreover, during down time I made a few posts over at howler-central----alt.atheism----and discovered that all messages post within 5 seconds. Traffic over there is SO heavy a posted message can fall off the first page within 10 minutes. And because traffic is so heavy discussion is virtually impossible. Too bad Talk.Origins can't enjoy 5 second wait times!

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>

>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>
>> And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
>> (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>>
>> --
>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>> Richard Clayton
>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
>
> Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was not.

What the fuck can this even mean? My brain hurts trying to parse. You are
either completely ignorant, batshit delusional, or deliberately lying.

My newsreader was working fine, but didn't pull new posts from t.o. because
beagle down. Feed came from other groups fine. Google Groups couldn't pull
new posts from t.o either for same reason (I checked periodically). Other
newsgroups had no feed pull problems hence your and my equally unencumbered
"access" to alt.atheism. I could have posted there but chose not to. So
clarify what the hell you are attempting to convey very poorly. Or are you
a lying troll deliberately obfuscating your ignorance away?

> Moreover, during down time I made a few posts over at
> howler-central----alt.atheism----and discovered that all messages post
> within 5 seconds. Traffic over there is SO heavy a posted message can
> fall off the first page within 10 minutes. And because traffic is so
> heavy discussion is virtually impossible. Too bad Talk.Origins can't
> enjoy 5 second wait times!
>

Quality is preferable to quantity. That place is a hot mess.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 7/18/17 2:11 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>> In article <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>,

>>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>>

>>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>>>

>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Ray, the group was down for everyone, including those of us using
>>> 'newsreader".
>>
>> You don't understand, Andre. In Ray's world, *everything that happens*
>> is proof positive of something he already believes. There's no point
>> arguing otherwise, because your very act of arguing is proof positive
>> that Ray is right. (If you fail to argue, that is equally proof
>> positive that Ray is right, but it takes less toll on your equanimity
>> and time.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
>> have." - James Baldwin
>
> I have a long and verifiable record of acknowledging errors and mistakes
> concerning topic, Mark. So you are way too worked up over nothing.
>

Bullshit. You and Berkeley Bill are sides of the post truther coin. Bill
thinks truth cannot be had thus is irrelevant. You are under the deluded
sway of misplaced certainty you alone (or royal we) possess the truth. But
you are full of shit as evidenced by this thread. Hence Trump.

[Robert Camp]

You have a very short record of acknowledging errors that don't
compromise your preconceived assumptions. You have a particularly long
record of ignoring corrections that come from those with more expertise
and experience - often accompanied by citation to scholarly sources and
even more often in contravention of overwhelming consensus - in favor of
maintaining your clearly deranged denial of obvious reality.

One example of which would be your continued mangling of the written
word by a laughably pretentious demurral from use of the word "the".

[Ray Martinez]

Too bad Robert failed to clinch his point by including examples. So all we have here is a string of unsupported assertions.

Ray

[jillery]

Not even wrong.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:40:05 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

Robert alludes to his overuse of the definite article, which clearly betrays amateur writing skills on his part, and my omission of the definite article when unneeded.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:40:05 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

Robert: You've never answered the following point, which I have made countless times: How could intelligent persons actually believe the wondrous organized complexity found in biodiversity to have come about through laws tethered to a genuine element of accident and/or chance? Remember, as per your point above, we are talking about delusion.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Ray: have you ever explained why you think "a genuine element of
accident and/or chance" prohibits "the wondrous complexity found in
biodiversity"?

>Ray
>
>> One example of which would be your continued mangling of the written
>> word by a laughably pretentious demurral from use of the word "the".

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <f15469c8-8874-44c4...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
> > >> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
> > >
> > > Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
> >
> > And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
> > (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
> >
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
>
> Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was
> not.

Umm.

talk.origins was inaccessible via either newsreaders or Google Groups.
alt.atheism was accessible via both newsreaders and Google Groups.

In what sense was newsreader access down yet google groups was not?

Andre

> Moreover, during down time I made a few posts over at
> howler-central----alt.atheism----and discovered that all messages post within
> 5 seconds. Traffic over there is SO heavy a posted message can fall off the
> first page within 10 minutes. And because traffic is so heavy discussion is
> virtually impossible. Too bad Talk.Origins can't enjoy 5 second wait times!
>
> Ray

[Öö Tiib]

There are no need for accidents or chances just simple laws are enough
to cause lot of complexity. For example fractals.
Mandelbrot set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXTpASSd9xE
Julia set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gruJ0S3TTtI

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:40:05 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 7/18/17 8:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/17 2:11 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>, Ray
>>>>> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July
>>>>>>> 6.
>>>>>>

You are so blatantly parochial. You view the situation through a Genesis
lens so combine a huge heaping scoop of cultural bias with an abundance of
anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism.

Granted appearance of design by analogy for argument sake how can you
assert Christian deity and not some other cultural myth? Why not amorphous
cosmic consciousness, pantheism, panpsychism, or a basic unconcerned
generative principle? Why are we the sole concern of so called creation and
not an evitable result given massive contingency from the onset of space,
time and causality? If our universe is all there is and at least coarse
tuned, it is overwhelmingly hostile to life in its emptiness so life itself
isn't a given and we are in a goldilocks zone. Otherwise there would be
life on all planets, moons and within the sun itself. Humans on Earth are
trivial, occupying a brief skiver of time in a remote part of universe, and
have no warrant to compare a putative cosmic generative principle to
themselves as a massive case of projection. And given Christian deity was
inherited from Jewish 2nd Temple conceptions perhaps borrowed from Persians
and Babylonians we are dealing with a quite limited cultural POV that by
contingency became prevalent on the world stage. And given the absurdities
of Genesis this blinkered conception is clearly wrong. Why not deism or
pantheism?

[Greg Guarino]

On 7/19/2017 1:53 AM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <f15469c8-8874-44c4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>> On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>>
>>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>>
>>> And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
>>> (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>>> Richard Clayton
>>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names

>>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

>>
>> Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was
>> not.
>
> Umm.
>
> talk.origins was inaccessible via either newsreaders or Google Groups.
> alt.atheism was accessible via both newsreaders and Google Groups.
>
> In what sense was newsreader access down yet google groups was not?

Presumably Ray means that he was still able to see the old messages
stored on Google Groups. As I was able to see the couple thousand
messages stored on my computer. But no one was able to see new messages
anywhere.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:01:11 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/19/2017 1:53 AM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> In article <f15469c8-8874-44c4...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>>> On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>>>
>>>> And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
>>>> (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>>>> Richard Clayton
>>>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names

>>>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

>>>
>>> Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was
>>> not.
>>
>> Umm.
>>
>> talk.origins was inaccessible via either newsreaders or Google Groups.
>> alt.atheism was accessible via both newsreaders and Google Groups.
>>
>> In what sense was newsreader access down yet google groups was not?
>
>Presumably Ray means that he was still able to see the old messages
>stored on Google Groups. As I was able to see the couple thousand
>messages stored on my computer. But no one was able to see new messages
>anywhere.

On a related note, during the T.O. downtime, Ray couldn't help himself
from posting in S.B.P. a plug for his alternative "talk origins"
Google Group.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <teuumc9jetgcjjdld...@4ax.com>,

I thought that group was Nando's group, not Rays.

Andre

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:43:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 7/18/17 2:11 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> In article <6bab87f2-a5f4-4606...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>>>
>>> Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Ray, the group was down for everyone, including those of us using
>> 'newsreader".
>
>You don't understand, Andre. In Ray's world, *everything that happens*
>is proof positive of something he already believes. There's no point
>arguing otherwise, because your very act of arguing is proof positive
>that Ray is right. (If you fail to argue, that is equally proof
>positive that Ray is right, but it takes less toll on your equanimity
>and time.)

Damn! So Gurgle actually *is* "the Internet", as Ray
asserted a few years back?
--

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 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:19:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:

>> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.

>Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.

Assuming by "newsreader" (the term for a Usenet client) you
actually meant "Usenet"...

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Usenet
is not "private"; as with Gurgle Gropes, anyone can play.

And you might want to note that Gurgle *also* showed no
posts in t.o for over a week.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:53:26 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>In article <f15469c8-8874-44c4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> > On 18-Jul-17 16:19, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> > >> Test. Nothing on talk.origins (eternal-september) since July 6.
>> > >
>> > > Proof positive newsreader is a private circuit.
>> >
>> > And where, Ray, would you say the point of failure lay? Be specific.
>> > (Hint: It isn't related to the client-side app used to access usenet.)
>> >
>> > --
>> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>> > Richard Clayton
>> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
>> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
>>
>> Clear evasion. The point was newsreader access was down but Google Groups was
>> not.
>
>Umm.
>
>talk.origins was inaccessible via either newsreaders or Google Groups.
>alt.atheism was accessible via both newsreaders and Google Groups.
>
>In what sense was newsreader access down yet google groups was not?

I no sense at all. Ray is an idiot; accept that and move on.

>> Moreover, during down time I made a few posts over at
>> howler-central----alt.atheism----and discovered that all messages post within
>> 5 seconds. Traffic over there is SO heavy a posted message can fall off the
>> first page within 10 minutes. And because traffic is so heavy discussion is
>> virtually impossible. Too bad Talk.Origins can't enjoy 5 second wait times!
>>
>> Ray
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:00:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

....and then reiterating those same errors, as above
("newsreader is a private circuit").

> So you are way too worked up over nothing.

No one is worked up; laughing at you doesn't qualify.

[Robert Camp]

Your inability to acknowledge having received that question's answer
countless times (and there we have just a few of the examples you asked
for in your previous post) does not mean it hasn't been answered.

I'll repeat my standard answer - Intelligent persons believe that
organized complexity can come about through non-directed natural
processes (what you clumsily characterize as "accident and/or chance")
for the same reasons they believe that stream-bed sorting happens
through non-directed natural processes, or snowflakes form, or beach
sand is deposited, or hurricanes develop, or crystals assemble,
or...or...or...or...

And those reasons are that when intelligent persons see something
happening for which the causes are well understood - intelligent persons
don't then undermine and discredit their own intelligence by making
fanciful inferences to unevidenced agents.

[Ray Martinez]

Not my group, just was alerting to existence. Group was founded by a Muslim Creationist who hasn't posted here in quite a while.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

In the context of answering Richard Dawkins and his book "The God Delusion," I observe that the reply above exhibits no awareness of the egregiously illogical proposition of accident/chance producing organized complexity. Dawkins spends much time in his published writings attempting to downplay the absurdity of accident/chance producing organized complexity. But Jillery, unlike Dawkins, shows no signs of even knowing that the proposition is highly illogical, which means impossible. Therefore I agree with Dawkins that a delusion is at work, but it isn't working on believers in God. It is, in fact, working on those who see nothing amiss in a paradoxical cause-and-effect proposition, and it's working on those who understand the severe illogical nature of the proposition but accept it anyway.

As a matter of sound logic, organized complexity has direct correspondence to the work of Mind, not accident, chance, un-guidedness, or un-directedness. No logical minded person comes across organized complexity and infers the work of un-directedness, un-guidedness, chance, or accident.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Undirectedness cannot be inferred from complex organization. So Robert Camp simply re-states the claim I am challenging as highly illogical.

And Robert ends his re-statement by implying that Mind is an "unevidenced agent," which is completely false. Mind or any synonym can be inferred from complex organization.

The problem here is Robert's illogical thinking. He has everything backwards or inverted with no awareness of the fact. Once again, I agree with Richard Dawkins that a delusion is at work, but it isn't working on believers in God as he argues. Rather, it is working on persons who see nothing amiss in a paradoxical cause-and-effect proposition.

Darwinism says complex organization was produced by non-designed agents of causation.

Victorian Creationism said complex organization infers the work of God.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Your mistakes of comprehension would be hilarious if they weren't so
suggestive of mental health problems.

I did not infer "undirectedness" from complex organization. I inferred
"undirectedness" from the lack of evidence for "directedness". So, no, I
didn't restate any claim.

> And Robert ends his re-statement by implying that Mind is an
> "unevidenced agent," which is completely false. Mind or any synonym
> can be inferred from complex organization.

What actually *is* hilarious is how you accuse (incorrectly) someone of
dialectical incoherence (e.g, my "restatement") and then turn around and
so foolishly (and blatantly) assume your own conclusion.

No, I never implied that "Mind" is an unevidenced agent, I implied that
inference to unevidenced agency is intellectually bankrupt. And since we
see plenty of organized complexity in the natural world, none of which
evinces the slightest suggestion of agency, I am once again forced to
observe that you have stated your conclusion as a premise.

> The problem here is Robert's illogical thinking. He has everything
> backwards or inverted with no awareness of the fact. Once again, I
> agree with Richard Dawkins that a delusion is at work, but it isn't
> working on believers in God as he argues. Rather, it is working on
> persons who see nothing amiss in a paradoxical cause-and-effect
> proposition.

Keep chanting your mantra, Ray. If it keeps you out of the tight, white
jacket, then go for it.

> Darwinism says complex organization was produced by non-designed
> agents of causation.
>
> Victorian Creationism said complex organization infers the work of
> God.

Well, first of all let's clear up your continued clumsy writing.
Victorian Creationism wouldn't "say" any such thing because complex
organization cannot "infer" anything. Complex organization can "imply"
something, but that's quite different. An inference is taken by an
intelligent agent.

Second, even accounting for your awkward phrasing I suppose I'm willing
to accept those characterizations. The problem for you is that the facts
- you know, the coin of reasoned analysis - all fall in favor of the former.

[Ray Martinez]

Not true, from above:

"I'll repeat my standard answer - Intelligent persons believe that organized complexity can come about through non-directed natural processes" (Robert Camp).

So Robert NOW agrees that the inference cannot be made.

> I inferred
> "undirectedness" from the lack of evidence for "directedness". So, no, I
> didn't restate any claim.

The inference of Director comes from the effect of complex organization. Again, you are shown to think illogically.

>
> > And Robert ends his re-statement by implying that Mind is an
> > "unevidenced agent," which is completely false. Mind or any synonym
> > can be inferred from complex organization.
>
> What actually *is* hilarious is how you accuse (incorrectly) someone of
> dialectical incoherence (e.g, my "restatement") and then turn around and
> so foolishly (and blatantly) assume your own conclusion.
>

Not true; we infer Director from complex organization. One cannot infer un-directedness from the same effect.

> No, I never implied that "Mind" is an unevidenced agent, I implied that
> inference to unevidenced agency is intellectually bankrupt. And since we
> see plenty of organized complexity in the natural world, none of which
> evinces the slightest suggestion of agency, I am once again forced to
> observe that you have stated your conclusion as a premise.
>
> > The problem here is Robert's illogical thinking. He has everything
> > backwards or inverted with no awareness of the fact. Once again, I
> > agree with Richard Dawkins that a delusion is at work, but it isn't
> > working on believers in God as he argues. Rather, it is working on
> > persons who see nothing amiss in a paradoxical cause-and-effect
> > proposition.
>
> Keep chanting your mantra, Ray. If it keeps you out of the tight, white
> jacket, then go for it.
>

Dawkins mantra too.

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You must be referring to your reply.

>Dawkins spends much time in his published writings attempting to downplay the absurdity of accident/chance producing organized complexity. But Jillery, unlike Dawkins, shows no signs of even knowing that the proposition is highly illogical, which means impossible.

I asked you a question. Why are you evading it?

>Therefore I agree with Dawkins that a delusion is at work, but it isn't working on believers in God. It is, in fact, working on those who see nothing amiss in a paradoxical cause-and-effect proposition, and it's working on those who understand the severe illogical nature of the proposition but accept it anyway.
>
>As a matter of sound logic, organized complexity has direct correspondence to the work of Mind, not accident, chance, un-guidedness, or un-directedness. No logical minded person comes across organized complexity and infers the work of un-directedness, un-guidedness, chance, or accident.
>
>Ray

So is that a "no"?

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

OK

[Ray Martinez]

Because it's highly illogical, which means impossible. Accident/chance cannot produce organization, unlike intelligence. Your question proves that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact. Dawkins is right a delusion is at work, but it's not working on believers in God, rather, it's working on believers in evolution. Organizd complexity as seen in an intricate pocket watch cannot be the product of accident or chance, and the watches found in nature, as Paley observed, are far more complex on a scale that exceeds all computation.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> Ray: have you ever explained why you think "a genuine element of
>> >> accident and/or chance" prohibits "the wondrous complexity found in
>> >> biodiversity"?
>
>Because it's highly illogical, which means impossible. Accident/chance cannot produce organization, unlike intelligence. Your question proves that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact. Dawkins is right a delusion is at work, but it's not working on believers in God, rather, it's working on believers in evolution. Organizd complexity as seen in an intricate pocket watch cannot be the product of accident or chance, and the watches found in nature, as Paley observed, are far more complex on a scale that exceeds all computation.

Of course, "highly illogical" doesn't mean "impossible" in any
meaningful sense. More to the point, you're the last person to say
what is or isn't logical, highly or otherwise.

[Ray Martinez]

Your reply clearly shows that you are completely ignorant of what logic entails (absence of contradiction) and the ensuing impossibility of any proposition that contains contradiction.

Nothing new here, as I and many others have observed for a very long time: People who accept evolution have no awareness of the illogical nature of their theory which mirrors how they think (contradictorily).

Organized complexity and accident/chance contradict egregiously.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:05:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Ray: have you ever explained why you think "a genuine element of
>> >> >> accident and/or chance" prohibits "the wondrous complexity found in
>> >> >> biodiversity"?
>> >
>> >Because it's highly illogical, which means impossible. Accident/chance cannot produce organization, unlike intelligence. Your question proves that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact. Dawkins is right a delusion is at work, but it's not working on believers in God, rather, it's working on believers in evolution. Organizd complexity as seen in an intricate pocket watch cannot be the product of accident or chance, and the watches found in nature, as Paley observed, are far more complex on a scale that exceeds all computation.
>>
>>
>> Of course, "highly illogical" doesn't mean "impossible" in any
>> meaningful sense. More to the point, you're the last person to say
>> what is or isn't logical, highly or otherwise.
>>
>

>Your reply clearly shows that you are completely ignorant of what logic entails (absence of contradiction) and the ensuing impossibility of any proposition that contains contradiction.
>
>Nothing new here, as I and many others have observed for a very long time: People who accept evolution have no awareness of the illogical nature of their theory which mirrors how they think (contradictorily).
>
>Organized complexity and accident/chance contradict egregiously.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)

I claim no particular expertise on the subject, nor does my point rely
on it. However ignorant I am about logic, I know it doesn't rely on
repeating bald assertions and making up private definitions. Just
sayin'.

[Burkhard]

Your argument is based on the fallacy of equivocation. It is true that
strict logical contradictions can't both be true at the same time.
However, this is true only for contradictions in the logical sense,
which are formal properties of propositions and either obtain or do not
obtain in a given case - so in particular can't have different degrees.
So your talk of something being "highly illogical" doesn't make any
sense for logic in the technical sense.

There is another use of the term "logical" in everyday language where it
simply means "plausible" or "intuitive". That one obviously can come in
degrees, and things can be somewhat, very or even "highly" illogical (or
implausible etc) in that sense.

But there is of course no reason to believe that things that are
"illogical" in this everyday sense can't be true - it is after all a
mainly subjective assessment.

There is nothing illogical in the technical sense in the proposition
that "chance causes complexity" - atomic contingent statements like this
never are. It might look implausible or counter-intuitive to you, but
fortunately your personal assessment of what is implausible is not a
yardstick for reality, just your subjective opinion










>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:46:09 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Perhaps Ray should enlighten the group regarding the
"logical validity" of wave-particle duality...

[Ray Martinez]

Said duality equates to spectacular evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural. When two contradicting realities exist simultaneously, the supernatural is shown to be present. Creationists have always said evidence supporting God exists abundantly and clearly, best seen in the design of nature, including particle duality.
Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:23:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Nope; sorry.

> When two contradicting realities exist simultaneously, the supernatural is shown to be present.

There is nothing supernatural about physics, and
wave-particle duality isn't "contradictory". Of course,
you'll deny this; ignorance sees the supernatural almost
everywhere.

> Creationists have always said evidence supporting God exists abundantly and clearly, best seen in the design of nature, including particle duality.

That's *wave*-particle duality. And no actual design is seen
in nature, only its appearance. Appearance isn't actuality.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

...

>
> There is nothing supernatural about physics, and
> wave-particle duality isn't "contradictory". Of course,
> you'll deny this; ignorance sees the supernatural almost
> everywhere.

Physics is mostly supernatural, assuming entities and
processes composed of other entities and processes, ad
infinitum. This view is almost entirely mathematical,
abstractions inferred from what theory (still more
abstractions) requires.


Physics is not about what is immediately tangible or
observable but rather with what is thought about what might
be or should be true.

Bill

[Ernest Major]

When it comes to living organisms you argue that an (alleged)
contradiction can't exist - and therefore God exists.

When it comes to wave=particle duality you argue that an (alleged)
contradictions does exist - and therefore God exists.

In your opinion is this contradiction in your arguments highly illogial
and/or supernatural?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

Egregious contradiction with no awareness of the fact. If something appears designed then design exists visually. In Bob's mind visual existence means the exact opposite.

For the Record: Since the rise of Darwinism, science does not accept any appearance of design existing in nature.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Show me an example/quotation?

> When it comes to wave=particle duality you argue that an (alleged)
> contradictions does exist - and therefore God exists.
>

I misread Bob, thought he was talking about Schrodinger's cat, which equates to prima facie evidence supporting the supernatural. When the supernatural is present "a thing" CAN be "two different things" at the same time. Christ, for example, was both all man and all God every moment of His life. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive----the wave function says so. The fact that physics refuses to accept the face value meaning clearly shows that they lie when they say they are open to see evidence of God.

> In your opinion is this contradiction in your arguments highly illogial
> and/or supernatural?
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Don't forget, the supernatural, unlike Naturalism, isn't bound by the rules of logic. Review the two examples given above.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

(Already quoted above.) That's an alleged contradiction, as well as tied
in with a Paleyist "proof" of God's existence.

>
>> When it comes to wave=particle duality you argue that an (alleged)
>> contradictions does exist - and therefore God exists.
>>
>
> I misread Bob, thought he was talking about Schrodinger's cat, which equates to prima facie evidence supporting the supernatural. When the supernatural is present "a thing" CAN be "two different things" at the same time. Christ, for example, was both all man and all God every moment of His life. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive----the wave function says so. The fact that physics refuses to accept the face value meaning clearly shows that they lie when they say they are open to see evidence of God.
>
>> In your opinion is this contradiction in your arguments highly illogial
>> and/or supernatural?
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> Don't forget, the supernatural, unlike Naturalism, isn't bound by the rules of logic. Review the two examples given above.
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

This is only true if the supernatural is inherently
illogical. This also requires that the rules of logic
establish truth which they do not. Since neither can be
proven, there must be some other way to investigate reality
that yields the truth. It may be that human intelligence
isn't up to the task.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Once again Bill claims factual knowledge exists----the knowledge that no factual knowledge can exist.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Once again you play your word games, using design as a verb and as a
noun. That one recognizes a pattern doesn't show said pattern was
created with intent. No matter how many times you baldly assert
otherwise, unguided natural processes create patterns all the time.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 18:17:23 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

How could you possibly be able to tell, since you continue
to contend that all observation is subjective?

> It may be that human intelligence
>isn't up to the task.

Or it may be that some humans aren't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

Nope; sorry again. Appearance of design exists, something no
one seems to contradict. Appearance *may* indicate reality,
or it may be only that, appearance. No one except you seems
to have trouble understanding that.

>For the Record: Since the rise of Darwinism, science does not accept any appearance of design existing in nature.

You are 100% wrong. Science (and scientists) accept that
some things in nature appear to be designed, but they
understand that appearances can be deceiving, as any optical
illusion shows.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 12:30:32 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:

>> There is nothing supernatural about physics, and
>> wave-particle duality isn't "contradictory". Of course,
>> you'll deny this; ignorance sees the supernatural almost
>> everywhere.

>Physics is mostly supernatural, assuming entities and
>processes composed of other entities and processes, ad
>infinitum. This view is almost entirely mathematical,
>abstractions inferred from what theory (still more
>abstractions) requires.

So in BillWorld, "supernatural", "mathematical" and
"abstract" are synonymous? That may explain a lot...

>Physics is not about what is immediately tangible or
>observable but rather with what is thought about what might
>be or should be true.

"Might be" is correct, at least in some areas; that's how
new advances begin (see my sig). "Should be", however, is
not, at least not in the usual "moral" sense; if you meant
"This is what we observe, so extrapolation from that
observation indicates that we should find X" then I can't
refute that. But given your posting history and
eridanus-like disparagement of science, I suspect you didn't
have that meaning in mind.

And BTW, most work in physics does indeed start with the
observable and tangible, but if that were where it remained
it would be nothing more than a compendium of observations,
and thus not science at all.

[Bill]

How about:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/14/537154304/computer-scientists-demonstrate-the-potential-for-faking-video

This technology shows that subjectivity is not only
inevitable but also undetectable. How can we know when we're
deluding ourselves?

>
>> It may be that human intelligence
>>isn't up to the task.
>
> Or it may be that some humans aren't.

Well some certainly believe in the possibility of human
omniscience.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Rather a couple of problems with this. At best, it's a bad case of
"special pleading", a.k.a ad hoc exception making. What would be the
objective reason to permit the exception to the laws of logic?

But your problems are more serious than that. The laws of logic, unlike
the laws of physics, are not something that applies to external objects
contingently, so that we can "find out" if they hold or do not hold for
any specific things.


Rather, the laws of logic delineate what we (as humans) can meaningful
say using language. What the laws of logic bind are not the things we
talk about, it is the medium of talking.

In that sense, if you say something like "The supernatural is not
subject to logic", then you only "seem" to utter a well-formed sentence
that can be true or false, but on closer inspection it is just a
category mistake, resulting in something "not even wrong" but
meaningless, something akin to "Uneven numbers are happy" or "triangles
sleep redly".

So, if confronted with a sentence like "Jesus is both all man and all
god", we have but two choices: treat it as a meaningless (but not
necessarily useless) sentence. On this more below. Or reinterpret it so
that the apparent contradiction disappears.

That is not difficult at all. Contrary to your assertion that "a thing
cannot be two different things", most things in fact are. I for instance
have been all my life both all German, and all European, and also all
human. Nothing remotely contradictory about it.

And the ball before me is and always has been a totally red thing, and
a totally round thing.

So for "Jesus was all god and all man" to be a contradiction at all, you
need additional propositions that define what "man" and "god" means. It
is these additional definitions that can create an inconsistency, e.g.
if one of these says something like:

(1) "No Men is ever a god" (or of course "Gods are never men")

That now on the face of it contradicts (2) "There was one men, Jesus,
who was also God".

But the natural remedy for that is simply to say that this means the
premise (1) is wrong as stated. It allows for at least one exception
and should have been somethings like

(1a) Almost no men was ever a god
or
(1b) No men but one was ever a god

Both are of course perfectly consistent with (2).

Anybody who now claims that (1) is literally true, and at the same time
(2) is true as well, does have indeed a problem. But not with his
understanding of what "supernatural" means, or being a god, or christian
theology, but simply with the meaning of the words "all", "none", "there
is" - which is as it should be, for one way to characterize logic is as
the theory of the meaning of the logical connectives, of which "all",
"there is" and "none" are three central ones (add "if-then", and you
have enough for all of classical logic)

So to the extend that "Jesus was all man and all God" means anything, it
means nothing that is logically contradictory. The only other
alternative is that it is indeed meaningless - but that does not mean
valueless or useless. It simply means it should not be understood as a
descriptive sentence with a referent, but as something like a mantra or
chant, whose role it is to trigger a certain type of experience.

This then would lead to one of the mystical schools within Christianity,
which precisely reject the idea that religious texts should be
understood referentially. As far as I'm concerned a much better way to
think about religion something you do and experience rather than you
"know" or "talk about".





> Ray
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 12:49:39 -0500, the following appeared

Damfino. But since you seem convinced that objective
knowledge is impossible, what happens to your desire to
"investigate reality that yields the truth"? Once again, you
try to tapdance around that problem.

>>> It may be that human intelligence
>>>isn't up to the task.
>>
>> Or it may be that some humans aren't.
>
>Well some certainly believe in the possibility of human
>omniscience.

I have no idea who that might be, even though "possibility"
is a bit vague.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

...

>>How about:
>>http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/14/537154304/computer-scientists-demonstrate-the-potential-for-faking-video
>>
>>This technology shows that subjectivity is not only
>>inevitable but also undetectable. How can we know when
>>we're deluding ourselves?
>
> Damfino. But since you seem convinced that objective
> knowledge is impossible, what happens to your desire to
> "investigate reality that yields the truth"? Once again,
> you try to tapdance around that problem.

The problem is that we exist in an environment that we can't
confirm actually exists. It appears that there's a kind of
background made of tiny parts that accumulate to create what
we experience. We know that this is not real in any
fundamental sense but it appears real to us and that's good
enough.

Objective reality, to us as humans, is subjective simply
because it only exists at the human scale of being. This
seems to confound everyone here yet it is so obvious.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

In particular this subjectivity seems to confound you, no matter how obvious it is. In spite of your claim that reality is subjective, you keep making claims about the world, about people in this newsgroup, about science, etc., as though such claims were not simply elements of your own subjective reality bearing no relation to anyone else's subjective reality or to (if there is such a thing) objective reality.

You consistently fail to take your own claims about the subjectivity of anything you think you know seriously. When people point this out to you, you become bored and lose interest in the discussion. But that's as it should be - radical subjectivism such as your makes all conversation pointless and boring.

>
> Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/6/17 10:49 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> [...] How can we know when we're deluding ourselves?

Step 1: Ask a variety of other people.
Step 2: Heed their answers.

Most people fail on step 2. You are one of them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:07:03 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>How about:
>>>http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/14/537154304/computer-scientists-demonstrate-the-potential-for-faking-video
>>>
>>>This technology shows that subjectivity is not only
>>>inevitable but also undetectable. How can we know when
>>>we're deluding ourselves?
>>
>> Damfino. But since you seem convinced that objective
>> knowledge is impossible, what happens to your desire to
>> "investigate reality that yields the truth"? Once again,
>> you try to tapdance around that problem.
>
>The problem is that we exist in an environment that we can't
>confirm actually exists. It appears that there's a kind of
>background made of tiny parts that accumulate to create what
>we experience. We know that this is not real in any
>fundamental sense but it appears real to us and that's good
>enough.

And, since by your assertion we can't confirm anything
exists, exactly how do we "know" what we observe isn't real?
We also can't confirm that *we* exist individually, other
than subjectively. That fact doesn't seem to be a problem
for anyone but you and a few other navel-gazers, since
rationality demands that we accept what we observe as real,
no other course being in the least productive.

>Objective reality, to us as humans, is subjective simply
>because it only exists at the human scale of being. This
>seems to confound everyone here yet it is so obvious.

No one is "confounded" by the idea that we don't, and can't,
see all aspects of objective reality; in fact, that has been
noted for you several times and therefore should be
"obvious" to you. The fact that it seems not to be is indeed
confounding.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:19:19 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 8/6/17 10:49 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> [...] How can we know when we're deluding ourselves?
>
>Step 1: Ask a variety of other people.
>Step 2: Heed their answers.
>
>Most people fail on step 2. You are one of them.

Prediction: We will now be treated to derisive comments
about "reality by vote".

[Ray Martinez]

I'm only answering to draw attention to the astronomic ignorance of ordinary Evolutonists on the internet. Bob, our ordinary Evolutionist, says science accepts appearance of design. Nothing could be more absurd and laughable. Science, as a matter of uncontested fact, does NOT accept Archdeacon Paley's main scientific claim, appearance of design. Bob is a victim of his own illogical thinking and inability to understand evolutionary scientists and scholars when they write in the context of a popular book.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 20:57:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Of course, you equate appearance of design, which science recognizes,
with Paley's fact of design, which science does not recognize. There's
a difference.

[Ray Martinez]

Once again I'm only answering to draw attention to the astronomic ignorance of ordinary Evolutionists on the internet. The comments above say science does accept existence of appearance of design----it does not as that is Paley's main scientific claim. And the comments above say an appearance of design can exist while said existence does not rise to the level of a fact. Silly as it gets, subjective as it gets.

One will never see an evolutionary scholar say any such things.

If X exists then X is a fact.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Bob is simply using the normal meaning of "appearance", which means
"looks as if, but might not". And Dawkins has used it in the same way,
you citing him several times yourself making that very same point.
>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:57:15 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>Once again I'm only answering to draw attention to the astronomic ignorance of ordinary Evolutionists on the internet. The comments above say science does accept existence of appearance of design----it does not as that is Paley's main scientific claim. And the comments above say an appearance of design can exist while said existence does not rise to the level of a fact. Silly as it gets, subjective as it gets.
>
>One will never see an evolutionary scholar say any such things.
>
>If X exists then X is a fact.
>
>Ray

Of course, you regularly point out that Richard Dawkins accepts
"appearance of design". He is very much a member of science. He uses
that phrase to distinguish appearance from the fact of design, which
is the very point I make above.

Yes, appearance of design in nature exists. No, intentional design in
nature does not exist. This is just another one of your silly word
games. Any ignorance you sense here is entirely yours.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 20:57:28 -0700 (PDT), the following

>I'm only answering to draw attention to the astronomic ignorance of ordinary Evolutonists on the internet. Bob, our ordinary Evolutionist, says science accepts appearance of design. Nothing could be more absurd and laughable. Science, as a matter of uncontested fact, does NOT accept Archdeacon Paley's main scientific claim, appearance of design. Bob is a victim of his own illogical thinking and inability to understand evolutionary scientists and scholars when they write in the context of a popular book.

Still having problems distinguishing "This looks like it was
designed, even though it wasn't" (the "appearance of design"
all scientists accept exists) from "This is known to be
designed"? No problem; we all know your pain.

Paley's assertion was apparently the same as yours; if it
looks like it was designed, that is definitive evidence that
it *was* designed. That assertion is incorrect.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 10:58:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets. Again.]

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 10:40:53 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Ray Martinez]

Material existence of a paradox supporting a known claim made by biblical supernaturalism like, for example, the Incarnation.

> But your problems are more serious than that. The laws of logic, unlike
> the laws of physics, are not something that applies to external objects
> contingently, so that we can "find out" if they hold or do not hold for
> any specific things.
>

Schrodinger's cat renders your thought, seen above, to be completely false.

The wave function says the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. This is WHY a certain school in physics wants to ignore the wave function because the laws of logic say the cat cannot be dead and alive at the same time. Schrodinger's cat and the wave function equate to clear evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural in physics. Schrodinger's cat PROVES that scientists are lying when they claim to be open to entertain evidence supporting the existence of God. And Schrodinger's cat has stalled physics for decades because logic says the cat cannot be dead and alive at the same time, yet the wave function says exactly that (= overt proof that the supernatural is PRESENT).

Will finish replying ASAP.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

[Picking up where I left off....]

Comments like these is why I have REPEATEDLY observed that you are ignorant as to what logic means and entails. Your comment says logic is restricted to the correct use of language; yet language exists to convey and describe material reality. A noun, for example, in the context of non-science fiction, is a duality; it's a word----person, place, or thing----AND its material referent. So if a sentence written in an empirical context contains a contradiction then the contradiction means the sentence cannot be true as written because the words in the sentence represent material entities, which cannot contradict. You've never been able to understand this basic fact native to Aristotelian epistemology because your thinking has long been poisoned by anti-reality epistemologies known as Skepticism and Naturalism. Logic in short is about what can or cannot exist; words or terms, as arranged in sentences, attempt to convey reality, not terms or words absent referents in your warped understanding. John Harshman once told me the word cat is not the material thing. So when I say your understanding is warped I'm using you to represent many educated persons. John's statement reveals detached or anti-reality thinking. Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.

Succinctly said: The meaning of a noun falsifies your statement seen above----that's how easy it is to refute. Sadly, like John, you don't know what a noun is. You can't retain its meaning in your thought because, like I said, you have long been poisoned by anti-reality epistemologies known as Skepticism and Naturalism.

Ray (Objectivist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

When it's said that the supernatural is not subject to the laws of logic what's being said is that when the supernatural is present a contradiction can indeed exist. Again, the prime example: Incarnation of Christ.

Sentence: "Jesus was all man and all God at all times during His life."

The above sentence contains a contradiction: a certain thing (Jesus) is said to be two different things (man and God) at the same time.

Yet the Church has knowledge that the sentence is true.

>
> So, if confronted with a sentence like "Jesus is both all man and all
> god", we have but two choices: treat it as a meaningless (but not
> necessarily useless) sentence. On this more below. Or reinterpret it so
> that the apparent contradiction disappears.

Accepted logic says the sentence cannot be true. But when the supernatural is present it can be true. Jesus was a man, He lived. His message: I was with God in heaven, and God told me to say whatever I'm saying and do whatever I'm doing. So when Jesus said "I am the door" He is saying that God told Him to say that----that He is the Captain of salvation co-equal with God. Almost every Christian on earth has the exact same testimony. They had a life-changing experience with the risen Christ: He forgave them of their sins just like in the New Testament where Christ forgave sins, which the Pharisees rightly identified as blasphemy. But again, Jesus said that whatever He did and whatever He said is because God told Him to say these things and do these things. Note that Jesus didn't say "God is the door," rather, He said "I am the door." He also said "I am the truth." Again, He said these things in the context that God told Him to say these things.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.

"My neighbor likes to cat around".

"cat" is both a noun and a verb.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
>
>
>"My neighbor likes to cat around".
>
>"cat" is both a noun and a verb.

Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
there are words for them.

[Burkhard]

Yes, according t the credo of Ray Martinez. But nobody is obligated to
take your idiosyncratic word use serious, or accept your blatantly self
contradictory theory of linguistics.

Logic is indeed part of the study of language and the way it structures
our reasoning. This was the case for Aristotle, who separated logic,
which he discusses in the Prior Analytics, from the specific study of
nature (which he discusses in Physics) and the general study of nature
(which he discusses in his metaphysics). Unsurprisingly, the "principle
of identity" that you misquote all the time is not in his book on logic,
but on metaphysics, to wit  Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4.
What ties logic and reality together, in Aristotle's system, are the
posterior analytics, but there too a separation of labour is maintained

You find this separation of labour even clearer in the earlier studies
on logic in India, where Panini was first ad foremost a grammarian, and
only secondly founder of a logical system.

The restriction of logic to the study of the formal properties of
language-based reasoning is maintained throughout Western history, you
find it expressed explicitly first in the stoics (who actively poke fun
at the "sophists" who sometimes for illicit reason confuse them) and
then in its first formal treatment in William of Occams Summa Logicae
-especially in Book 1 that deals with "terms" and introduces the
distinctions you'd find in a modern semiotic treaty.

As I said before, you really should get yourself an introduction to
Logic for dummies, all that stuff will be in the first chapter, it would
mean you embarrass yourself slightly less.

> So if a sentence written in an empirical context contains a contradiction then the contradiction means the sentence cannot be true as written because the words in the sentence represent material entities, which cannot contradict.

Yup, and nobody disputes that.

> You've never been able to understand this basic fact native to Aristotelian epistemology because your thinking has long been poisoned by anti-reality epistemologies known as Skepticism and Naturalism.

None of this has anything to do with realism vs non-realism, and the
separation of labour between logic, physics, metaphysics and
epistemology is accepted by realists and non-realists alike.

>Logic in short is about what can or cannot exist; words or terms, as arranged in sentences, attempt to convey reality, not terms or word
s absent referents in your warped understanding.

The only person whose understanding is warped, and out of line with the
way these terms in question have been used by logicians, linguists and
philosophers ever since Aristotle the latest.

Logic describes the formal properties of the most important tool we have
to reason about and discuss the world - our language. That does not
entail any commitment to the relation between language and external
reality, one way or the other, and is compatible with pretty much any
form of realism or non-realism. It simply studies a different phenomenon.

>John Harshman once told me the word cat is not the material thing.

And he is mostly right. The word "cat" can sometimes be a material
thing. In that case we talk about the specific ink molecules on a piece
of paper, or the specific sound wave someone made in a talk. Linguists
and logicians call this, following the terminology suggested by Peirce
in 1909, the word token.

We talk about this e.g. when we want to ensure that a document is
authentic, and say things like: "a chemical test of the document has
shown that the word cat was inserted long after the rest of the text was
written."

In most context though, we talk about the word type rather than the word
token , as in ""Cat" is a word of the English language". In that use,
the one that matters most to linguists and logicians, the word is indeed
not a material thing but an abstract object.

None of that the least disputed, and as I said first made fully explicit
by Panini in fourth century BC India, then independently by William of
Occam, and in its modern form and terminology by Sanders Peirce, de
Saussure and G W Frege. But pretty much any introductory text to logic
and linguistics will tell you the same thing.

> So when I say your understanding is warped I'm using you to represent many educated persons.

Not just many. Pretty much all

>John's statement reveals detached or anti-reality thinking.

Nope, just a necessary discernment between different things, one that is
common usage in the relevant disciplines and indeed beyond

> Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.

Only your first sentence directly contradicts the second - which is the
source of your confusion, and as so often it is difficult to say if it
is merely your bad writing style, concerning of the technical meaning of
terms, or about the substance of what you write (or all of the above)

Yes to the first, the word cat is indeed not (normally) the material
thing, but only represents or identifies it. And precisely because of
that John is of course right, word and referent are separate entities,
linked by a relation )that of "representing" or "referring to".

That's something realists and non-realists happily agree on, they only
differ in the nature of that "representation relation", what it entails,
and what exactly the referents are.

So no, the cat is not a noun, rather, cats are refereed to by the word
"cat", which is a noun.

If word and referent were the same thing as you claim them to be, you
immediately get utterly nonsensical results:

The word "cat" entered the English language in 700 AC or thereabouts.
But there were of course cats long before that. But by your logic,we
could infer that cats only started ot exist in 700

"Cat", "Mao" and "Katze" are obviously different words, but they all
refer to cats. By your strange logic, there are either no different
languages, or there are different four legged entities in the world, one
for each language (the exact opposite of objectivism btw)

>
> Succinctly said: The meaning of a noun falsifies your statement seen above----that's how easy it is to refute.

Which statement? And no, far from falsifying anything, that sentence
doesn't make any sense, grammatically speaking

>Sadly, like John, you don't know what a noun is.

Well, possibly true, but for reasons other than you might think.

"Noun", just like "verb", "adjective" or "prefix" is simply a group of
grammatical entities, that is things that form a syntactic class. So far
so easy. More difficult is to determine what the members of this group
have in common.

Sometimes (and mostly in older textbooks), nouns are defined
semantically, as words that refer to objects like persons, places,
things, events, substances, qualities, quantities etc etc.

The advantage is that this definition is largely language-independent.
The disadvantage is that it is pretty much empty - the "etc" does a lot
of work here and can include pretty much anything. It is also, as Ray
Jackendorf notes, simply begs the question:

"For instance, to choose about the simplest possible correlation, it is
frequently asserted that nouns name “things,” such as houses,horses,
doctors, and tables; hence the category Noun can be derived directly
from( or directly correlated with) semantics. But what about earthquakes
and concerts and wars, values and weights and costs, famines and
droughts, redness and fairness, days and millennia, functions and
purposes, craftsmanship, perfection, enjoyment, and finesse? The kinds
of entities that these nouns denote bear no resemblance to concrete
objects. To assert that they must have something in common semantically
with concrete nouns merely begs the question" (R Jackendorf, Foundations
of language, OUP 2002 p. 124)

There are worse problems, e.g. things like this: "He gave up smoking for
the sake of his children". In this sentence, "sake" is grammatically
clearly a noun, yet it is unclear what sort of object it refers to. (for
a full discussion there is a very good entry on "reference" by Reimer,
Marga and Michaelson, Eliot, "Reference", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reference/>.

So most linguists define "Noun" through the formal syntactic and
morphological properties, e.g. in the case of nouns "can be combined
with a determiner" or " can serve as the subject of a verb".

The disadvantage of this approach is that it is language specific, so
how you identify nouns in English will differ from Russian e.g. (as
Russian does not have a definite determiner)

As a result, some simply combine the two approaches, e.g. in the
definition used by the Merriam Webster dictionary:

"any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with
determiners (see determiner b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be
interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and
refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept".

Not ideal and in danger of combining the disadvantage of both approaches.

So what nouns really are is actually quite difficult to say, and debated
controversially in linguistics, but that has nothing t do with your
kindergarten ideas about them.

>You can't retain its meaning in your thought because, like I said, you have long been poisoned by anti-reality epistemologies known as Skepticism and Naturalism.
>

Nope. Nothing here has anything to do with realism vs anti-realism, that
is just all standard linguistical analysis which is uncontested between
the two fields.

[Burkhard]

Only that that alone is not enough to form a contradiction. I gave you
the reasons, which you never addressed, before. "Being two different
things" is not a contradiction, you are e.g. both American and human,
even though "being American" and "being human" are not the same thing. A
tennis ball is both round and white, yet being white is not the same as
being round etc etc.

So to make that sentence into a contradiction, you need quite a number
of other sentences in addition that say something about "being a god"
and "being a human". And as I've shown you before, in most cases that
will simply boil to Jesus being an exception to a contingent rule, no
contradiction involved.

>
> Yet the Church has knowledge that the sentence is true.

The Church might claim it is true, but that is hardly an argument
non-member would find convincing.

>
>>
>> So, if confronted with a sentence like "Jesus is both all man and all
>> god", we have but two choices: treat it as a meaningless (but not
>> necessarily useless) sentence. On this more below. Or reinterpret it so
>> that the apparent contradiction disappears.
>
> Accepted logic says the sentence cannot be true.

Nope, just Ray-made-up-logic. For it to become a logical contradiction,
you need quite a bit more.

>But when the supernatural is present it can be true.

So you claim. But that is just question begging, as I said before, and
based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be subject to the laws
of logic.

>Jesus was a man, He lived. His message: I was with God in heaven, and God told me to say whatever I'm saying and do whatever I'm doing. So when Jesus said "I am the door" He is saying that God told Him to say that----that He is the Captain of salvation co-equal with God. Almost every Christian on earth has the exact same testimony. They had a life-changing experience with the risen Christ: He forgave them of their sins just like in the New Testament where Christ forgave sins, which the Pharisees rightly identified as blasphemy. But again, Jesus said that whatever He did and whatever He said is because God told Him to say these things and do these things. Note that Jesus didn't say "God is the door," rather, He said "I am the door." He also said "I am the truth." Again, He said these things in the context that God told Him to say these things.

Unfortunately nothing of this has any bearing on the issue.

[Ray Martinez]

Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).

But there are people who believe that unicorns and evolution exist. All they have to do is provide a material referent for everyone to see. When this happens these things can be removed from the sphere of science fiction.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
>> >
>> >
>> >"My neighbor likes to cat around".
>> >
>> >"cat" is both a noun and a verb.
>>
>> Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
>> fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
>> there are words for them.
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
>Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).
>
>But there are people who believe that unicorns and evolution exist. All they have to do is provide a material referent for everyone to see. When this happens these things can be removed from the sphere of science fiction.
>
>Ray

Yet another ignorant and dishonest non-response.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
>> >
>> >
>> >"My neighbor likes to cat around".
>> >
>> >"cat" is both a noun and a verb.
>>
>> Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
>> fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
>> there are words for them.

>Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).

Is that supposed to be a retraction for your idiotic claim
that the existence of the word "cat" is evidence that cats
exist? Cats do exist, but the word isn't evidence for that
observed fact.

>But there are people who believe that unicorns and evolution exist. All they have to do is provide a material referent for everyone to see. When this happens these things can be removed from the sphere of science fiction.

Been done, multiple times (for evolution, that is; if you
want to believe in unicorns that's up to you). Standing
around with your fingers in your ears and your eyes
squinched shut doesn't change that.

And BTW, unicorns are fantasy, not SF. HTH.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 10:10:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"My neighbor likes to cat around".
> >> >
> >> >"cat" is both a noun and a verb.
> >>
> >> Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
> >> fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
> >> there are words for them.
>
> >Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).
>
> Is that supposed to be a retraction for your idiotic claim
> that the existence of the word "cat" is evidence that cats
> exist?

Never said any such thing, that's why I said opponents haven't understood anything said.

> Cats do exist, but the word isn't evidence for that
> observed fact.

What I said is that the word cat has a material referent----that's why the word exists, to identify the material referent. So when the word cat appears in a scientific context the material referent is the object at issue. Non-reality thinking, as displayed by Burkhard, says the word and material referent, in the realm of logic, exist detached, which shows, as I have been saying, that Burk does not know what logic is or entails. Logic is about what can or cannot exist. If a sentence contains a contradiction then the sentence cannot be true because reality or material referents, cannot contradict (unless the supernatural is present).

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:55:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 10:10:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"My neighbor likes to cat around".
>> >> >
>> >> >"cat" is both a noun and a verb.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
>> >> fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
>> >> there are words for them.
>>
>> >Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).
>>
>> Is that supposed to be a retraction for your idiotic claim
>> that the existence of the word "cat" is evidence that cats
>> exist?
>
>Never said any such thing, that's why I said opponents haven't understood anything said.

Since you're apparently too clueless to read what you posted
(see above), here it is again:

[Ray]:

"Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing;
rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material
thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the
word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are
not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun."

So you did indeed assert that since the word "cat" exists,
and since physical cats exist, the existence of the
appearance of design is evidence that design exists.

>> Cats do exist, but the word isn't evidence for that
>> observed fact.

>What I said is that the word cat has a material referent----that's why the word exists, to identify the material referent.

So, by that "logic", both unicorns and fairies exist?

> So when the word cat appears in a scientific context the material referent is the object at issue.

Correct. Just like evolution, speciation, and a host of
other terms with "material" referents. But terms can exist
for which there are no such referents, like "design in
nature".

> Non-reality thinking, as displayed by Burkhard, says the word and material referent, in the realm of logic, exist detached, which shows, as I have been saying, that Burk does not know what logic is or entails. Logic is about what can or cannot exist. If a sentence contains a contradiction then the sentence cannot be true because reality or material referents, cannot contradict (unless the supernatural is present).

Logic is *not* "about what can or cannot exist"; it's about
what "follows" from previous statements and the conclusions
drawn from them. Your confusion regarding the uses and
meaning of "logical" has been one of your many problems for
years.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 10:10:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:06:51 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone well knows the word cat is not the material thing; rather, the word cat represents or identifies a material thing that is well known to exist. In John's "thinking" the word and referent are separate; in logical reality they are not, they are one thing known as a cat which is a noun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "My neighbor likes to cat around".
>>>>>
>>>>> "cat" is both a noun and a verb.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but the real question is, does he cat around with
>>>> fairies and unicorns, both of which exist in RayWorld since
>>>> there are words for them.
>>
>>> Shows that you haven't understood anything I've said. I specifically write and explicate in the context of topic (a non-science fiction context).
>>
>> Is that supposed to be a retraction for your idiotic claim
>> that the existence of the word "cat" is evidence that cats
>> exist?
>
> Never said any such thing, that's why I said opponents haven't understood anything said.

It might not be what you meant, or wanted to say, but it is indeed an
implication of what you did literally said when you said the noun cat
and the cats it refers to are the same thing.

As I said before, it is difficult to know if your muddled posts are just
the result of your poor writing style, idiosyncratic use of technical
vocabulary that has accepted meanings, or genuine confusion about the
substance you say.

>
>> Cats do exist, but the word isn't evidence for that
>> observed fact.
>
> What I said is that the word cat has a material referent----that's why the word exists, to identify the material referent.

Nobody would have objected (much) had you put it this way. One can have
a philosophical discussion of the concept of "reference" is really doing
any explanatory work, as Quine did, but it is a consistent and perfectly
mainstream position on word meaning, and that would do for TO.

But according to your frequently made statement, the word cat is the
thing it refers to, and his is simply beyond silly, and as the example
by Bob and me show leads immediately to absurdity.

Now, as I said, I don't know if this is simply your inability to write
clearly, confusion about what "identical with", "the same" and "refers
to" mean, or an even deeper confusion, but one way or the other what you
write makes no sense whatsoever.

>So when the word cat appears in a scientific context the material referent is the object at issue.

Obviously not, as the example of Schrödinger's cat shows, which does
not refer to an actual cat, but one Schrödinger had only imagined. Or
the ideal roulette or perfectly fair coin from the other thread, which
play an important role in statistics, but do not exist instantiated as
physical objects anywhere.

Furthermore, scientific progress often consists in finding out that
something that was thought to exist did not in reality - the
luminiferous aether is one example. But we can of course understand what
there theories said, even though they were not true. If things worked
the way you claim, we would never be able to understand false theory,
ad scientific progress would be impossible.

So no, you can't resolve the issue of abstract or empty objects
through restriction to scientific contexts.

And neither would it be in line with what logic is- a universal theory
of correct inferences that applies independently of the chosen subject
domain, and works for an analysis of the internal consistency of Harry
Potter just as well as that of a scientific theory

>Non-reality thinking, as displayed by Burkhard, says the word and material referent, in the realm of logic, exist detached,

Of course they are detached, they are also detached in your won
statement above, that the word cat refers to material cats. "Refers to"
is a relation that holds between 2 different objects (indeed, objects of
a different type). So they have to be detached for that sentence to make
sense.

As far as logic is concerned, the reference relation is simple a
function from terms to the universe of discourse.

In classical first order logic, this will look like this:

Each function symbol f of arity n is assigned a function I(f) from
D^{n} to D

In particular, each constant symbol of the signature is assigned an
individual in the domain of discourse.

Each predicate symbol P of arity n is assigned a relation I(P) over
D^{n} to {true, false)

The I(f) is the interpretation function which represent the "refers to"
relation.

(e.g. Wilfrid Hodges "Classical Logic I: First Order Logic". CUP 2001 p. 10

But logic does not tell you anything about what the objects in D are,
apart from the fact that the are self-identical (hence A = A). They can
be physical objects,abstract objects, nonexistent objects, linguistic
entities, whatever.

Nor does logic tell you anything of substance about the reference
relation, and in particular not if or how we can know if it holds
between objects, how gain that information etc etc.

For this you need other disciplines, ontology or epistemology e.g. That
does not mean logic says anything negative about this relation either,
e.g. that there are no external objects. So it really has nothing to do
with realism or anti-realism, and philosophers of either persuasion will
happily use the definition given above.

Same with mathematics. all mathematicians can agree that "1+1 = 2". But
they can then disagree what the term "1" refers to , and with that why
the sentence is true. It might refer to nothing, or to abstract eternal
platonic entities, or to sets of physical objects. The sentence might be
true by convention, or because it reflects a structure of our cognitive
ability to count, or because it expresses a structural property of an
external realm of platonic structures, or a feature of the empirical
world. These are questions for ontologists or philosophers of
mathematics, but not for mathematics proper.

The success of both logic and mathematics (and the are really the same
thing, something we know since Goedel the latest) is that it works
independently of these other questions, and gives you the right (and teh
same) results regardless what position you take.

>which shows, as I have been saying, that Burk does not know what logic is or entails. Logic is about what can or cannot exist.

Not really, that would be ontology. Logical constraints form only one
small part of that, and logic is mainly concerned, ever since Aristotle,
with correct inferences, that is necessary relations between sentences
or propositions.

>If a sentence contains a contradiction then the sentence cannot be true because reality or material referents, cannot contradict

Quite possibly. As far as logic is concerned, they simply can't both be
true. That is independent of the question of material referents. "Harry
Potter is a boy" and "Harry Potter is not a boy" also can't both be
true, and neither can "1+1=2" and "1+1=3" and lots of other sentences
which have (probably) no material referent.

> (unless the supernatural is present).

No, also when the supernatural is present, no special pleading allowed.
Contradictory sentences are simply meaningless, so for whatever reason
do not convey any information.

[Ernest Major]

Unicorns are in the Bible, so one would expect a "Bible-believing
Christian" like Ray to think that they exist/ed.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Debatable. There are quite a number of unicorns in bona fide SF. My
friend Charles Stross has one in Equoid e.g.
http://www.tor.com/2013/09/24/equoid/

Other examples are Roger Zelazny's "Unicorn Variation" (where the
unicorn is a chess playing alien) or those in Harlan Ellison's "On the
Downhill Side". Mark Geston's The Siege of Wonder is aSF/F crossover so
difficult to classify.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:56:31 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

Got me there; it's been quite a while since I read the Bible
in its entirety. Chapter/verse?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 13:28:48 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Granted that creatures called unicorns (as Zelazny's alien)
may exist in SF, and so may fairies, it should have been
obvious that I was referring to the mythical sort of
supernatural creatures which have had those designations for
centuries. And also granted that the SF/fantasy divide is
rather fuzzy at times, especially when multiverses appear.
But I think Ray knows what I meant.

[solar penguin]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:36:29 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote...

>
> Your reply clearly shows that you are completely ignorant of what logic
> entails (absence of contradiction) and the ensuing impossibility of any
> proposition that contains contradiction.
>

Ray, whatever you do, don't ever play this game:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/otvvj2k

At one point you have to work out that although you have a cup of tea in
one hand, you can have no tea in the other hand. Therefore you can
simultaneously have both Tea and No Tea at the same time. Understanding
how this contains a contradiction but is still possible is a sign of
great intelligence in the game.

[Ernest Major]

On 19/08/2017 18:06, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Unicorns are in the Bible, so one would expect a "Bible-believing
>> Christian" like Ray to think that they exist/ed.
> Got me there; it's been quite a while since I read the Bible
> in its entirety. Chapter/verse?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV
--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 18:55:13 +0100, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

OK; thanks. I guess Ray will have to begin believing in
unicorns...