Why Alan Kleinsman's "model" of natural selection isn't worth the electronic paper it's printed on:

[Oxyaena]

Mr. Kleinsman would have us believe that he can predict evolution, and
somehow incorporate natural selection into his "model", with the help of
mathematics. What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is that math
doesn't work on evolution the way it does on physics. Evolution is
inherently unpredictable, with many random factors coming into play.
Said factors include such things as the physical environment, genetic
drift, and so on and so forth. An actual model of evolution would
account for at least some of those factors. Mr Kleinsman's "model" doesn't.

I can make educated guesses on the future courses that evolution takes,
but due to the inherent unpredictability of evolution such guesses are
mere speculation. Mr Kleinsman would have us believe that by
"predicting" the amount of variants that have descendants into the next
generation (which he terms "evolutionary cycles", as if there were such
a thing), he can somehow create a viable model of evolution by natural
selection. This is, at best, a fundamentally flawed view of how
evolution works, and at worst, mere filler.

There are many random factors that affect evolution, factors that
affected human evolution include the advent of the ice age, an example
of climate change, and the invention of agriculture, none of which can
be predicted by Kleinsman's model. While the advent of the ice age can,
to a degree be predicted due to the existence of Milankovitch cycles, Mr
Kleinsman's model fails to account for such factors and ultimately falls
far short of its stated goal of creating a viable model of evolution by
natural selection. The reason Darwin's model of evolution worked so well
is because it had a working mechanism for one, and for two his model
actually addressed such matters as environmental change.

Mr Kleinsman is nothing more than a fraud.

[John Harshman]

On 9/16/17 12:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Mr. Kleinsman would have us believe that he can predict evolution, and
> somehow incorporate natural selection into his "model", with the help of
> mathematics. What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is that math
> doesn't work on evolution the way it does on physics.

This will come as a great surprise to population geneticists from R. A.
Fisher on down.

> Evolution is
> inherently unpredictable, with many random factors coming into play.
> Said factors include such things as the physical environment, genetic
> drift, and so on and so forth.

Can't you say the same thing for any physics outside the most carefully
controlled laboratory experiment?

> An actual model of evolution would
> account for at least some of those factors. Mr Kleinsman's "model" doesn't.

Well, that's true at least.

I suggest reading Improbable Destinies by Jonathan Losos for a
discussion of when and to what extent evolution is predictable.

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is <snip>

He actually has both an MD and a PhD. The MD is from the American Medical School of the Caribbean. The PhD is in Engineering from some university in one of the Arab Gulf States.

>
> Mr Kleinsman is nothing more than a fraud.

Certainly a crackpot. Whether or not he's a fraud depends on whether he fools himself as well as those in his church.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Alan like yourself and all other Atheists accepts the main cause-and-effect claim of Naturalism science, natural selection causing microevolution, so he cannot be a crackpot.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d0b683f-b705-4706...@googlegroups.com...

LOL. But Ray himself is. Obviously, he doesn't know or understand the
meaning of the word "selection". It is excluded from his personal
dictionary. What isn't there doesn't exist.
He doesn't even want to know, that would spoil his game.
The most used word in my dictionary is "idiot".

>

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!

[Steady Eddie]

I agree, Tiib got a little wobbly on the last post. But I hope to post a thread of the actual calculations being made in real time, with input from you all, to set up some ballpark parameters.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Based on the fact that Alan says RMNS exists he cannot be a fraud, Oxy.

In Alan you have a highly credentialed Theist who has affirmed the main claim of Atheist biology existing and true, natural selection causing microevolution. You can't expect every Theist to go all the way and embrace cumulative selection. That would render Alan's God superfluous. Then again how could a follower of God accept a claim produced by the assumptions of Naturalism? So you might after all have a point, Oxy: One could rightly say Alan's Theism is fraudulent.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:

> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is <snip>
>
> He actually has both an MD and a PhD. The MD is from the American Medical School of the Caribbean. The PhD is in Engineering from some university in one of the Arab Gulf States.

My PhD is from the University of California Saudi Barbara. I also have state licenses in both medicine and engineering in Caliphateafornia

>
> >
> > Mr Kleinsman is nothing more than a fraud.
>
> Certainly a crackpot. Whether or not he's a fraud depends on whether he fools himself as well as those in his church.

A crackpot who knows how to do the mathematics of rmns including explaining the probable reason why two-drug combination therapy failed in your study.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/16/2017 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/16/17 12:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> Mr. Kleinsman would have us believe that he can predict evolution, and
>> somehow incorporate natural selection into his "model", with the help
>> of mathematics. What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is that
>> math doesn't work on evolution the way it does on physics.
>
> This will come as a great surprise to population geneticists from R. A.
> Fisher on down.

You got me there. Have you ever played around with the Red Lynx
pop-genetics simulator? I used to when I was bored.

>
>> Evolution is inherently unpredictable, with many random factors coming
>> into play. Said factors include such things as the physical
>> environment, genetic drift, and so on and so forth.
>
> Can't you say the same thing for any physics outside the most carefully
> controlled laboratory experiment?



>
>> An actual model of evolution would account for at least some of those
>> factors. Mr Kleinsman's "model" doesn't.
>
> Well, that's true at least.

That was one of the major things I noticed about Kleinsman's "model",
something Peter, in usual Nyikosian fashion, brushes away as
"irrelevant". Darwin's model of evolution does account for said factors,
Kleinsman's doesn't.

>
> I suggest reading Improbable Destinies by Jonathan Losos for a
> discussion of when and to what extent evolution is predictable.
>

Give me a link, and I'll check it out.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/16/2017 4:28 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is <snip>
>
> He actually has both an MD and a PhD. The MD is from the American Medical School of the Caribbean. The PhD is in Engineering from some university in one of the Arab Gulf States.

That explains a lot:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineer_woo

[Oxyaena]

More incoherent nonsense spewing out from the cesspit that is Ray
Martinez. First of all, evolution and theism aren't mutually exclusive,
one could acknowledge evolution and still be a theist, just look at the
pope. You're also conflating *methodological* naturalism with
*metaphysical* naturalism.

Science runs off the assumption that natural causes are sufficient for
the way the world works, that is *methodological* naturalism, it is
agnostic on whether the supernatural exist, and has no need for it.
*Metaphysical* naturalism posits that no supernatural entities exist,
whilst the two aren't mutually exclusive, you shouldn't conflate
*methodological* naturalism and *metaphysical* naturalism.

That is why there is no such thing as "atheist" biology, because science
is inherently agnostic on claims regarding the supernatural, and by the
principle of methodological naturalism, resorting to anything
supernatural as a cause for natural phenomena is unscientific.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Oxy parrots the illogical nonsense created to give Christians cover in accepting evolution. Alan Kleinman is overly educated yet he is unable to see the uncomplicated fact that Theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. All Oxy did was assert otherwise via making up concepts and assigning them ad hoc definitions.

Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists. This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS. But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature. Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.

The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."

Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Oh my god, Ray... this never stops being any less dumb. Your "logic" isn't actually logic. No, theism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. There are a few different ways for a God and evolution to "fit together," but your thinking is to brittly rigid to conceive them.

ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God. NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."

>
> Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.

No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.

> This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.

No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.

>But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.

Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.

> Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.

The Pope may not speak for God, but he is kind of the textbook example of a Theist, whether you find his particular brand of Theism heretical or not.

>
> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."

Darwin's opinions on the subject of God are not germaine. The science of evolution works just as well, whether a person believes in God or not.

>
> Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.
>
> Ray

No, again, we accept evolution because it is such a good fit to the evidence we see. And because -- unlike you -- we don't have a theology that is THREATENED by evolutionary science, we have no reason NOT to accept it.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 11:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > What Mr (not "Dr") Kleinsman fails to realize is <snip>
> >
> > He actually has both an MD and a PhD. The MD is from the American Medical School of the Caribbean. The PhD is in Engineering from some university in one of the Arab Gulf States.
> My PhD is from the University of California Saudi Barbara.

Ah, my mistake. On one of your previous visits here you posed a link (firewalled) to your PhD thesis. The link was to a university library in one of the Arab Gulf States. I wrongly thought that, therefore, that was where you had gotten your degree. Sorry.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:40:05 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

> one could acknowledge evolution and still be a theist...

Comment above asserts Intelligent cause, unintelligent effects (RMNS) are not mutually exclusive. Yet unintelligence excluding intelligence is a perfectly accurate example of mutual exclusivity. The effect can never be used to infer the cause.

Alan cannot address because the facts dictate that the following three conclusions must be true:

1. Alan's Theism is not genuine; 2. Alan's evolution is not genuine; or 3. Alan's evolution and Theism are not genuine.

Oxy, John Harshman, and Bill Rogers have all said that Alan's conception of RMNS is flawed to the point of being an absurdity. I'm being nice because all three have said much worse. So number 2 is true. Yet all three Atheists, Oxy, John, and Bill say Alan's Theism not harmed by his acceptance of RMNS however flawed. In other words we have three Atheists who approve of Alan's Theism. Fact: When Atheists approve of Theism the Theism MUST be false because Atheists would never approve of a genuine Theist, so number 1 above is true too. The fact that both number 1 and number 2 are true dictates that number 3 is true as well.

One cannot out-fox or get around the logic of mutual exclusivity.

Ray


> ...just look at the

[jillery]

Even if what you say above were true, it says nothing about why
non-atheists support Evolution, which is the relevant point here.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Sean Dillon]

So dumb...

Ray of COURSE a sentient, intelligent agent can put a non-sentient, non-intelligent process in motion. Humans do it all the time.

>
> Alan cannot address because the facts dictate that the following three conclusions must be true:
>
> 1. Alan's Theism is not genuine; 2. Alan's evolution is not genuine; or 3. Alan's evolution and Theism are not genuine.
>
> Oxy, John Harshman, and Bill Rogers have all said that Alan's conception of RMNS is flawed to the point of being an absurdity. I'm being nice because all three have said much worse. So number 2 is true. Yet all three Atheists, Oxy, John, and Bill say Alan's Theism not harmed by his acceptance of RMNS however flawed. In other words we have three Atheists who approve of Alan's Theism. Fact: When Atheists approve of Theism the Theism MUST be false because Atheists would never approve of a genuine Theist, so number 1 above is true too. The fact that both number 1 and number 2 are true dictates that number 3 is true as well.

Ray, just because we're atheists, that doesn't mean we have to disapprove of other people's theism. Your premises and your logic are both tortured.

>
> One cannot out-fox or get around the logic of mutual exclusivity.
>
> Ray

We couldn't, if any such mutual exclusivity actually existed.

[John Harshman]

It's a book. Try Amazon.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

No one has ever questioned the ability of mankind to produce unintelligent systems. So your point indulges false equivocation. Returning to the point at hand: a **theistic** deity cannot be said to have produced unintelligent causation agencies, precisely why these agencies are also described as unguided and undirected. Each adjective says invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is known not to be involved. That said, Theists like Alan Kleinman are shown to accept a certain explanation of evidence that says their God does not exist. Alan remains conspicuously silent.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Yes, but I have addressed this issue. Since evolution is an explanation of evidence, Theists should accept a pro-Theism explanation of evidence, not a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence.

Alan Kleinman craves secular acceptance. He typifies all TEists. Since we are talking about explanation of evidence, Alan has no excuse. Because he has published papers that admit RMNS exists, he will never acknowledge the fact that he has accepted an explanation of evidence that contradicts his Theism, yet, as a matter of fact, he has done just that. This is why I sharply criticized Alan early on, he completely ignored. He has little knowledge in logic and history of science, the latter existing to preserve the positions of science past and what caused science to change positions. Alan has published papers that affirm the existence of RMNS but RMNS is a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence, which contradicts and falsifies his alleged Theism. No wonder wonder Alan chooses to remain silent, nothing for him to gain except unrelenting humiliation.

Fact: RMNS is described as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide are KNOWN not to be involved in evolutionary causation.

Ray

[jillery]

Evolution isn't pro- anything. Like instructions on how to drive a
car, it just is.

>Alan Kleinman craves secular acceptance. He typifies all TEists. Since we are talking about explanation of evidence, Alan has no excuse. Because he has published papers that admit RMNS exists, he will never acknowledge the fact that he has accepted an explanation of evidence that contradicts his Theism, yet, as a matter of fact, he has done just that. This is why I sharply criticized Alan early on, he completely ignored. He has little knowledge in logic and history of science, the latter existing to preserve the positions of science past and what caused science to change positions. Alan has published papers that affirm the existence of RMNS but RMNS is a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence, which contradicts and falsifies his alleged Theism. No wonder wonder Alan chooses to remain silent, nothing for him to gain except unrelenting humiliation.
>
>Fact: RMNS is described as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide are KNOWN not to be involved in evolutionary causation.
>
>Ray

RMNS is the good DrDr's private label.

An invisible Intelligence, Director, Guide can't be KNOWN to cause
anything, it can only be assumed.

[Burkhard]

well, you have. Every time you claimed that cause and effect must not
have as a matter of logic antonymic properties. But I'm glad that you
dropped that silly notion now.

>So your point indulges false equivocation. Returning to the point at hand: a **theistic** deity cannot be said to have produced unintelligent causation agencies, precisely why these agencies are also described as unguided and undirected.

So us tiny little humans can do something God can't do? Your theology
get more weird by the day!

[Sean Dillon]

Calling evolution "unguided" and "undirected" is not a teleological statement, but an operational one. The mechanism of evolution is such that it does not REQUIRE outside guidance in order to do what it does. This does not rule out the possibilities that:
1. A deity set the preconditions or rules of reality so as to allow evolution to occur.
2. A deity is actually "in control" of mutation, in a way that still looks random from our perspective.
3. A deity manipulated the world's environments over time, in order to coax a particular evolutionary history.
4. Other possibilities that I, as an atheist, haven't even bothered to think up.

There are PLENTY of ways that a God COULD be involved in either the initial "set-up" of evolution, and/or even its ongoing process, without running afoul of evolutionary science

[aug....@gmail.com]

You keep getting this wrong, Ray. He has accepted an explanation of evidence that contradicts *your* theism, not his. When you can demonstrate that *your* theism is correct, then and only then do you get to complain about other people's theisms.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

As already argued, the only reason the Atheists approve of Alan's Theism is because he accepts existence of RMNS, and like I already said as well, anytime Atheists approve of Theism that in and of itself is the best evidence that the Theism is pseudo-Theism.

What an insult: Atheists approving of one's Theism! And any objective understanding of Theism and evolution dictates mutually exclusive concepts, the latter conveying unintelligent causation, the former conveying Intelligent causation. Alan is well educated yet he is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the egregious and uncomplicated contradiction.

Ray

[aug....@gmail.com]

Who ever said that I approved of anyone's theism? I think *all* theism is a waste of time and effort but if it pleases you to have theistic beliefs then so be it. I "approve" of *your* theism just as much as I "approve" of his.

Be that as it may, you haven't addressed the point that I made. He's violated *your* theism, not his own. Can you demonstrate that your theistic beliefs are the correct beliefs? No? Perhaps you ought to consider why that is.

> What an insult: Atheists approving of one's Theism! And any objective understanding of Theism and evolution dictates mutually exclusive concepts, the latter conveying unintelligent causation, the former conveying Intelligent causation. Alan is well educated yet he is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the egregious and uncomplicated contradiction.

Again, it's a contradiction to *your* theology, not to his. Sorry if you don't like that.

[Ernest Major]

On 18/09/2017 17:58, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."

Are you now claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and
so on were not created by God?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Oxyaena]

Ray Martinez creates a paranoid conspiracy theory about my alleged
motives while being wronger than wrong at the same time. Ray goes on to
assert that I am bullshitting when I am obviously not. Your particular
brand of theist idiocy is incompatible with evolution, not all theists
follow your particular brand of paranoid superstitious nonsense. To be a
theist only requires that one believes in a god or gods, nothing else.
The Pope is a theist because he believes in a god. So it doesn't matter
if you agree with him or not, he's still a theist.

>
> Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists. This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS. But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature. Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.

As I said above, one is a theist if they believe in a god or gods. The
Pope is a theist. Catholics will accuse you of heresy, since technically
the Papacy existed long before Martin Luther, and since heresy by
definition is straying away from the religious status quo, it is
arguable that Protestants are heretics. Now, I`m not here to argue about
who is a Christian or not, I view such things as irrelevant nonsense.
The point being, the example of the Pope still holds because he is a
theist by all reasonable definitions of the term.

>
> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."

We accept evolution because it fits the evidence at hand. Charles Darwin
has no more say over us than Diogenes of Sinope does, that is, none.
Science is agnostic on whether a god exists or not, hence evolution is
still compatible with theism, since it stills leaves room for a theist
to believe in god since science doesn't address claims of the
supernatural. So your "argument" is PRATT, that is, Point Refuted A
Thousand Times (PRATT).



[snip mindless drivel]

[John Harshman]

No, he's claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and so
on are intelligent processes. It isn't quite clear what "intelligent
process" means to Ray, though.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.

Yet Alan, a Theist, advocates existence of natural selection, which was offered originally as refuting the independent creation of EACH species (= supernatural causation); which means Creationism, as just defined, was the episteme of science; see Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray.

Alan Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has published scientific papers without having first done all the necessary research into relevant issues; history of natural selection, direct creation, and the logic of his claims in view of these objective histories. How do we know this is true? Alan remains absent, unable to defend himself against the foregoing legitimate criticisms.

Instead, Alan hides behind Atheists who have taken it upon themselves to defend his standing as a Theist who readily accepts the MAIN CLAIM of Atheist biology: random mutation + natural selection causing micro-evolution. Simply pathetic for a man with two doctorates.

Alan, in my criticism, represents all so called Theistic Evolutionists including Steady Eddie, Martin Harran, William Dembski, Ken Ham, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Peter Nyikos, who proudly and staunchly defends the positions of these persons as a closet Atheist.

> ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God.

Manifestly false: biology says natural selection is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means science has knowledge that invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is not involved with natural selection. So the claim that evolution is Agnostic equates to a brazen attempt to suppress truth for the expressed purpose of protecting Theistic Evolutionists from being seen as accepting claims that say their God, contrary to what Genesis says, did not play any role in the production of any living thing, past or present.

This is why Alan argues for restricted non-cumulative selection, which creates the following model: God intervenes in nature, working around an unintelligent process that He created.

>
NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."
>

Sean previously asserted science Agnostic now he admits his assertion actually contained an invisible asterisk: science, according to his comment above, is ALSO naturalistic, which means science advocates Naturalism, which is true. Science uses the assumptions of Naturalism to interpret all evidence. Therefore Sean has contradicted himself. He has said science is Agnostic and naturalistic. Naturalism of course is not in any way neutral concerning the supernatural, but says the same does not exist in nature. Agnosticism says "don't know" either way. So Agnosticism and Naturalism contradict. Science cannot be both at the same time. We know for a fact that science is fully natural----hence, for example, natural selection, which was offered as refuting independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

And Sean's claim that God or the supernatural is not testable equates to a very predictable tenet of Naturalism. Theists of course disagree. We know the supernatural is testable, unlike evolution, which is not testable. But I admit that when a Theist like myself says evolution is not testable the same equates to a very predictable tenet of Biblical Supernaturalism. We can admit while Sean and his Atheist cohorts cannot.

>
> > Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.
>
> No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.
>

Probably the most objective statement that you have ever written.

> > This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.
>
> No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.
>

Everything written after the first word in the comments above contradicts the first word in the comments written above.

> >But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.
> >
> Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.
>

Egregious contradictions seen above; namely: scientific evidence is Agnostic, but those who accept the evidence, Atheists, remain Atheists, and do not convert to Agnosticism.

> > Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.
> >
> The Pope may not speak for God, but he is kind of the textbook example of a Theist, whether you find his particular brand of Theism heretical or not.
>

Sean repeats his point.

>
> > The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
> >
> Darwin's opinions on the subject of God are not germaine. The science of evolution works just as well, whether a person believes in God or not.
>

Evasion.

>
> > Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.
> >
> > Ray
>
> No, again, we accept evolution because it is such a good fit to the evidence we see. And because -- unlike you -- we don't have a theology that is THREATENED by evolutionary science, we have no reason NOT to accept it.
>

That's right; Atheists accepted Darwin's theory immediately and enthusiastically, this would include Marx and Engels. Any theory Marx and Engels accept MUST be anti-Theism. Darwin, in the Origin, argued against (Genesis) special creation. Yet inexcusably evil "Theists" like Alan Kleinman and Steady Eddie cannot figure out what that means (quote marks justified)!

Here is what that means via the claims of Alan Kleinman: The theistic deity of the Bible created an unintelligent agent of causation (RMNS) whereby one cannot infer His existence, but one can ascertain the falsity of the first two chapters of the Bible!

Good job, Alan. God must be proud of you.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I'm saying/claiming these are **designed processes** by which one can infer the work of invisible Intelligence.

Prior to 1859, science accepted Creationism as defined in the Origin by Charles Darwin----who, prior to 1837-1838 was a Paleyan Creationist. That means Darwin accepted design and independent creation of each species during the initial 5 years of his career in science (1831-1836).

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[Sean Dillon]

Science neither accepts NOR REJECTS any claim that supports theism. We've been over this.

>
> Yet Alan, a Theist, advocates existence of natural selection, which was offered originally as refuting the independent creation of EACH species (= supernatural causation); which means Creationism, as just defined, was the episteme of science; see Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray.

It is inaccurate to suggest that only independent creation is compatible with supernatural causation. It is indeed quite possible that evolution -- while not requiring supernaturalism to function -- did in fact have a supernatural origin. Just as it is quite possible that a rock rolling downhill (which requires no intelligence to keep happening) may have been intentionally pushed off the top of the hill by a sentient agent.

>
> Alan Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has published scientific papers without having first done all the necessary research into relevant issues; history of natural selection, direct creation, and the logic of his claims in view of these objective histories. How do we know this is true? Alan remains absent, unable to defend himself against the foregoing legitimate criticisms.

I will grant you Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. Just not for the silly reasons you imagine.

>
> Instead, Alan hides behind Atheists who have taken it upon themselves to defend his standing as a Theist who readily accepts the MAIN CLAIM of Atheist biology: random mutation + natural selection causing micro-evolution. Simply pathetic for a man with two doctorates.

Biology isn't "atheist." It is merely silent on the subject of God.

>
> Alan, in my criticism, represents all so called Theistic Evolutionists including Steady Eddie, Martin Harran, William Dembski, Ken Ham, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Peter Nyikos, who proudly and staunchly defends the positions of these persons as a closet Atheist.
>
> > ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God.
>
> Manifestly false: biology says natural selection is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means science has knowledge that invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is not involved with natural selection. So the claim that evolution is Agnostic equates to a brazen attempt to suppress truth for the expressed purpose of protecting Theistic Evolutionists from being seen as accepting claims that say their God, contrary to what Genesis says, did not play any role in the production of any living thing, past or present.

Science says that God doesn't NEED to be involved in evolution. The process is self-sustaining. However, that does not (because it CANNOT) rule out the possibility that God either set up the universe in such a way as to allow evolution to occur, or even remains involved in the process in ways that are not detectable scientifically.

>
> This is why Alan argues for restricted non-cumulative selection, which creates the following model: God intervenes in nature, working around an unintelligent process that He created.

Evolution is no more or less unintelligent than any other natural process. Gravity is an unintelligent process. Electrical conductivity is an unintelligent process. If God intervenes in nature at all, he is working around the unintelligent processes He created, by necessity.

>
> >
> NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."
> >
>
> Sean previously asserted science Agnostic now he admits his assertion actually contained an invisible asterisk: science, according to his comment above, is ALSO naturalistic, which means science advocates Naturalism, which is true.

NOPE! You're confusing method with philosophy.

> Science uses the assumptions of Naturalism to interpret all evidence.

NOPE! You're confusing method with philosophy.

> Therefore Sean has contradicted himself. He has said science is Agnostic and naturalistic. Naturalism of course is not in any way neutral concerning the supernatural, but says the same does not exist in nature.

Science says no such thing. Science only says that -- if the supernatural exists -- science cannot test it.

> Agnosticism says "don't know" either way. So Agnosticism and Naturalism contradict.

Indeed, Agnosticism and METAPHYSICAL naturalism do contradict. But science is not metaphysically naturalistic.

> Science cannot be both at the same time. We know for a fact that science is fully natural----hence, for example, natural selection, which was offered as refuting independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

And yet, the supernatural COULD BE "behind" nature, and science is utterly unable to refute that possibility... and always will be.

>
> And Sean's claim that God or the supernatural is not testable equates to a very predictable tenet of Naturalism. Theists of course disagree. We know the supernatural is testable, unlike evolution, which is not testable. But I admit that when a Theist like myself says evolution is not testable the same equates to a very predictable tenet of Biblical Supernaturalism. We can admit while Sean and his Atheist cohorts cannot.

And how do you propose to test the supernatural? What test has the potential to falsify the existence of the supernatural?

>
> >
> > > Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.
> >
> > No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.
> >
>
> Probably the most objective statement that you have ever written.

Nah, you just haven't known me that long.

>
> > > This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.
> >
> > No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.
> >
>
> Everything written after the first word in the comments above contradicts the first word in the comments written above.

Not at all. I support evolutionary science because it makes sense of the evidence, not because it supports atheism.

>
> > >But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.
> > >
> > Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.
> >
>
> Egregious contradictions seen above; namely: scientific evidence is Agnostic, but those who accept the evidence, Atheists, remain Atheists, and do not convert to Agnosticism.

No contradiction at all. Science is a tool. Like a hammer. Is a hammer atheistic? Theistic? No, it is neither, because it is just a tool. My hammer is silent on the existence or non-existence of God. So I own an "agnostic" hammer, but that doesn't mean that I myself must be agnostic.

>
> > > Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.
> > >
> > The Pope may not speak for God, but he is kind of the textbook example of a Theist, whether you find his particular brand of Theism heretical or not.
> >
>
> Sean repeats his point.

Sorry? Come again?

>
> >
> > > The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
> > >
> > Darwin's opinions on the subject of God are not germaine. The science of evolution works just as well, whether a person believes in God or not.
> >
>
> Evasion.

No, that's actually of central importance. The personal religious views of scientists are utterly irrelevant. All that matters is whether their theories work. Neither Darwin's atheism nor Newton's fanaticism are germaine to the operations of their scientific theories.

>
> >
> > > Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > No, again, we accept evolution because it is such a good fit to the evidence we see. And because -- unlike you -- we don't have a theology that is THREATENED by evolutionary science, we have no reason NOT to accept it.
> >
>
> That's right; Atheists accepted Darwin's theory immediately and enthusiastically, this would include Marx and Engels. Any theory Marx and Engels accept MUST be anti-Theism. Darwin, in the Origin, argued against (Genesis) special creation. Yet inexcusably evil "Theists" like Alan Kleinman and Steady Eddie cannot figure out what that means (quote marks justified)!

I bet Marx and Engels also believed in the importance of a hearty breakfast. Does that mean that a hearty breakfast is anti-Theist? You're trying to create guilt by association, and it is making you look very dumb.

>
> Here is what that means via the claims of Alan Kleinman: The theistic deity of the Bible created an unintelligent agent of causation (RMNS) whereby one cannot infer His existence, but one can ascertain the falsity of the first two chapters of the Bible!
>
> Good job, Alan. God must be proud of you.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

Only if those first two chapters are read as literal. And God (if He exists) created LOTS of unintelligent agents of causation. In fact, science can be seen as one big catalog of all the unintelligent agents of causation God created.

[John Harshman]

On 9/19/17 3:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/19/17 11:45 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2017 17:58, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a
>>>> theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that
>>>> Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more
>>>> about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God
>>>> thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as
>>>> Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and
>>> so on were not created by God?
>>>
>> No, he's claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and so
>> on are intelligent processes. It isn't quite clear what "intelligent
>> process" means to Ray, though.
>
> I'm saying/claiming these are **designed processes** by which one can infer the work of invisible Intelligence.

Does "designed process" means the same thing as "intelligent process"?
If not, you are self-contradictory.

> Prior to 1859, science accepted Creationism as defined in the Origin
> by Charles Darwin----who, prior to 1837-1838 was a Paleyan
> Creationist. That means Darwin accepted design and independent
> creation of each species during the initial 5 years of his career in
> science (1831-1836).

Even if that were true, why should anyone care, and why is it relevant
to anything Ernest or I said?

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/17 3:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/19/17 11:45 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> On 18/09/2017 17:58, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a
> >>>> theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that
> >>>> Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more
> >>>> about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God
> >>>> thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as
> >>>> Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
> >>>
> >>> Are you now claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and
> >>> so on were not created by God?
> >>>
> >> No, he's claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and so
> >> on are intelligent processes. It isn't quite clear what "intelligent
> >> process" means to Ray, though.
> >
> > I'm saying/claiming these are **designed processes** by which one can infer the work of invisible Intelligence.
>
> Does "designed process" means the same thing as "intelligent process"?
> If not, you are self-contradictory.

But I never said Intelligent process.

Moving on to something more important and relevant:

In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?

You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s) of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why? And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?

After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I've supported mutual exclusivity clearly.

> >
> > Yet Alan, a Theist, advocates existence of natural selection, which was offered originally as refuting the independent creation of EACH species (= supernatural causation); which means Creationism, as just defined, was the episteme of science; see Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray.
>
> It is inaccurate to suggest that only independent creation is compatible with supernatural causation. It is indeed quite possible that evolution -- while not requiring supernaturalism to function -- did in fact have a supernatural origin.
>

AGAIN, a supernatural First Cause cannot be inferred from natural selection, which is described as unintelligent, undirected, and unguided. Yet Sean's point concedes the uncomplicated fact that evolution is atheistic (no role for God in the history of life on earth). The official position of evolutionary theory concerning First Cause is abiogenesis.

>
Just as it is quite possible that a rock rolling downhill (which requires no intelligence to keep happening) may have been intentionally pushed off the top of the hill by a sentient agent.
>
> >
> > Alan Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has published scientific papers without having first done all the necessary research into relevant issues; history of natural selection, direct creation, and the logic of his claims in view of these objective histories. How do we know this is true? Alan remains absent, unable to defend himself against the foregoing legitimate criticisms.
>
> I will grant you Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. Just not for the silly reasons you imagine.
>
> >
> > Instead, Alan hides behind Atheists who have taken it upon themselves to defend his standing as a Theist who readily accepts the MAIN CLAIM of Atheist biology: random mutation + natural selection causing micro-evolution. Simply pathetic for a man with two doctorates.
>
> Biology isn't "atheist." It is merely silent on the subject of God.
>

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

> >
> > Alan, in my criticism, represents all so called Theistic Evolutionists including Steady Eddie, Martin Harran, William Dembski, Ken Ham, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Peter Nyikos, who proudly and staunchly defends the positions of these persons as a closet Atheist.
> >
> > > ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God.
> >
> > Manifestly false: biology says natural selection is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means science has knowledge that invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is not involved with natural selection. So the claim that evolution is Agnostic equates to a brazen attempt to suppress truth for the expressed purpose of protecting Theistic Evolutionists from being seen as accepting claims that say their God, contrary to what Genesis says, did not play any role in the production of any living thing, past or present.
>
> Science says that God doesn't NEED to be involved in evolution. The process is self-sustaining. However, that does not (because it CANNOT) rule out the possibility that God either set up the universe in such a way as to allow evolution to occur, or even remains involved in the process in ways that are not detectable scientifically.
>

Sean's statement admits that God is not INVOLVED as per the adjectival descriptions of natural selection, but he then engages damage control by saying God COULD have set the process in motion. AGAIN, Intelligence cannot be inferred from unintelligent process, and abiogenesis is the position of evolutionary theory. Moreover, no one needs permission to have subjective opinions.

> >
> > This is why Alan argues for restricted non-cumulative selection, which creates the following model: God intervenes in nature, working around an unintelligent process that He created.
>
> Evolution is no more or less unintelligent than any other natural process. Gravity is an unintelligent process. Electrical conductivity is an unintelligent process. If God intervenes in nature at all, he is working around the unintelligent processes He created, by necessity.
> >
> > >
> > NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."
> > >
> >
> > Sean previously asserted science Agnostic now he admits his assertion actually contained an invisible asterisk: science, according to his comment above, is ALSO naturalistic, which means science advocates Naturalism, which is true.
>
> NOPE! You're confusing method with philosophy.

Anyone can fact check and discover that it was Sean who initiated evolution as embracing Agnosticism and Naturalism, not me. I have said evolution only embraces Naturalism.

>
> > Science uses the assumptions of Naturalism to interpret all evidence.
>
> NOPE! You're confusing method with philosophy.

Non-sequitur.

What I said remains true unless you can identify a pro-supernatural scientific claim.

This is what one gets when the validity of Theistic Evolutionism is at stake: Evolutionists suddenly denying the undisputed claim that science is fully naturalistic/materialistic.

>
> > Therefore Sean has contradicted himself. He has said science is Agnostic and naturalistic. Naturalism of course is not in any way neutral concerning the supernatural, but says the same does not exist in nature.
>
> Science says no such thing. Science only says that -- if the supernatural exists -- science cannot test it.
>

False; Naturalism makes the well known claim that the supernatural does not exist in nature----that's why evolution is necessary. No supernatural Creator exists to cause any living thing to exist so living things must have originated from a previously living thing, nothing complicated here.

> > Agnosticism says "don't know" either way. So Agnosticism and Naturalism contradict.
>
> Indeed, Agnosticism and METAPHYSICAL naturalism do contradict. But science is not metaphysically naturalistic.
>

Sean moves the goal posts; we were not talking about metaphysics; rather, we were talking about epistemology; and science says abiogenesis is true, not Deism or Theism.

Thus epistemological Naturalism, known more commonly in relevant literature by the euphemism "positivism," which is the episteme or the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory, and Agnosticism, contradict because latter says Atheism and Theism are false while the former says Theism is false.

> > Science cannot be both at the same time. We know for a fact that science is fully natural----hence, for example, natural selection, which was offered as refuting independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).
>
> And yet, the supernatural COULD BE "behind" nature, and science is utterly unable to refute that possibility... and always will be.
>

Sean's reply tries hard to conceal the fact that it agrees with what I said. Sean is of course attempting to save the face of Theistic Evolutionists while I am attempting to show them for what they are: deluded traitors without a leg to stand on.

Alan remains conspicuously absent. Eddie as well. Eddie, I believe, is a Jehovah's Witness. Where in natural selection is Jehovah witnessed or seen, Eddie? Why not accept a teleological explanation of evidence? You don't know that Darwin was an Atheist, Eddie? Would you like some quotes? You surely won't get these quotes from Wikipedia! They are suppressed! All it takes is some diligent research, which I have done. Darwin became an Atheist during the two-years 1837-1838. Do those two years ring a bell? What else happened during those two years, Eddie? How about you Alan? You have two doctorates, and you have published papers. You are a credentialed scholar. You do know that Darwin became an Atheist during the two years 1837-1838, don't you Alan? That's TWO DECADES before he published the Origin. Alan and Eddie: Let me know if you want Darwin quotes admitting Atheism? And the quotes that do appear on Wikipedia and other sites, admitting Agnosticism, are egregious quote mines. Darwin did NOT say he was an Agnostic; rather, he said he didn't know how First Cause came about, huge difference.

Then again, where in the Origin is any Theism? Darwin argued against special creation over the course of 489 pages. Alan and Eddie: Are you guys saying that you don't know what that means? And did you know that in Victorian times, up until 1883, it was illegal to advocate Materialism? So page 490 was a legal necessity.

>
> >
> > And Sean's claim that God or the supernatural is not testable equates to a very predictable tenet of Naturalism. Theists of course disagree. We know the supernatural is testable, unlike evolution, which is not testable. But I admit that when a Theist like myself says evolution is not testable the same equates to a very predictable tenet of Biblical Supernaturalism. We can admit while Sean and his Atheist cohorts cannot.
>
> And how do you propose to test the supernatural? What test has the potential to falsify the existence of the supernatural?
>

Not the issue here. The issue here is that no Atheist speaks for Theism and Supernaturalism. Design is falsifiable: see Paley's stone. And John Harshman has said that Biblical Theism is falsifiable, ask him.

>
> > >
> > > > Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.
> > >
> > > No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.
> > >
> >
> > Probably the most objective statement that you have ever written.
>
> Nah, you just haven't known me that long.
>
> >
> > > > This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.
> > >
> > > No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.
> > >
> >
> > Everything written after the first word in the comments above contradicts the first word in the comments written above.
>
> Not at all. I support evolutionary science because it makes sense of the evidence, not because it supports atheism.
>

Ridiculous.

Atheists support Darwinism because Darwinism uses pro-Atheism assumptions to interpret nature and evidence. If evolution was Agnostic, Atheists would convert to Agnosticism.

> >
> > > >But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.
> > > >
> > > Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.
> > >
> >
> > Egregious contradictions seen above; namely: scientific evidence is Agnostic, but those who accept the evidence, Atheists, remain Atheists, and do not convert to Agnosticism.
>
> No contradiction at all. Science is a tool. Like a hammer. Is a hammer atheistic? Theistic? No, it is neither, because it is just a tool. My hammer is silent on the existence or non-existence of God. So I own an "agnostic" hammer, but that doesn't mean that I myself must be agnostic.
>

Natural selection isn't Agnostic; it was conceived by Darwin before 1839; Huxley coined Agnostic in 1869.

Gotta run....

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

> Not the issue here. The issue here is that no Atheist speaks for Theism [or] Supernaturalism. Design is falsifiable: see Paley's stone. And John Harshman has said that Biblical Theism is falsifiable, ask him.

Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.

"It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."

The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.

In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."

The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility of the cause.

When a contradiction is identified what is being said is that the statement cannot be true.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 9/19/17 5:51 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/19/17 3:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/17 11:45 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> On 18/09/2017 17:58, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a
>>>>>> theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that
>>>>>> Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more
>>>>>> about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God
>>>>>> thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as
>>>>>> Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you now claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and
>>>>> so on were not created by God?
>>>>>
>>>> No, he's claiming that gravity and electromagnetism and weather and so
>>>> on are intelligent processes. It isn't quite clear what "intelligent
>>>> process" means to Ray, though.
>>>
>>> I'm saying/claiming these are **designed processes** by which one can infer the work of invisible Intelligence.
>>
>> Does "designed process" means the same thing as "intelligent process"?
>> If not, you are self-contradictory.
>
> But I never said Intelligent process.

No you didn't. You said it's impossible for a theistic deity to have
created an unintelligent process. Unless your words have no meanings,
that requires the deity to create only intelligent processes. I'm
willing to accept that your words have no meanings, if you prefer.

> Moving on to something more important and relevant:
>
> In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?

Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
no selection.

> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
> of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
> readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?

I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
particular independent events.

> And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
> could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
> selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?

My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.

> After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?

Nope, he's gone.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:32:48 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

>Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.
>
>"It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
>
>The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>
>In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."
>
>The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility of the cause.
>
>When a contradiction is identified what is being said is that the statement cannot be true.
>
>Ray

In the case of your analogy, you assume contradiction, but you don't
know it to be so. Perhaps the trees were protected from the breeze.
Perhaps the tree branches were unusually robust. Perhaps the were tied
down and couldn't move. Contradiction can't reasonably be baldly
asserted, but must be actively demonstrated to be the case.

In a similar way, in the case of theistic intelligence, you assume
contradiction, but don't know it to be so. As a self-identified
Payleyian, you should assume theistic intelligence to create similarly
to human intelligence. Yet it's almost certain you personally have
created unintelligent processes, ex. drop a cup and its contents spill
in an undirected pattern, an unintelligent process. I bet even you
could come up with some examples.

So, assuming you think you're intelligent (it doesn't matter what
everybody else thinks... honest), and since you're capable of creating
unintelligent processes, and since you're a self-identified Payleyian,
then you should assume your presumptive Designer is capable of
creating unintelligent processes too.

[Sean Dillon]

Ray, Ray, Ray... this is just so dumb.

The contradiction is only in your mind. I have already given you an example of an intelligent agent creating an unintelligent process: a person intentionally push a rock from the top of a mountain, sending it rolling. The action is intelligent and intentional, but the resultant process (the rolling down the hill) is entirely unintelligent.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim such a thing is logically impossible, when I can give you a practical example that shows it manifestly IS possible. And nothing about it being a THEISTIC intelligence changes this. God is just as capable of pushing a metaphorical rock down a hill as any other intelligent agent. Indeed, one would assume he is much MORE capable of doing so.

Can I look at a rock rolling down a hill, and infer that its tumble is the result of intelligent agency? No, not necessarily. Does that matter? No... whether it can be inferred or not, in our example, an intelligent agent is the cause. If, on the other hand, I ALREADY have reason to believe that there is an intelligent agent at the top of the mountain, I might suspect that this agent was involved in the rock fall, even if I can't prove it.

Such is the situation for theistic evolutionists. Usually for reasons quite apart from evolution itself, they feel they have reason to believe that God DOES EXIST. And based on that, they have every reason to imagine that God was in some sense involved in "getting the ball rolling" where life and evolution are concerned, even though the ball can KEEP rolling without needing any further input from God. And this view is 100% compatible with science.

I'm going to try to strike the word "naturalism" from any of my communications with you, because the various definitions of the term (depending on context) seem to confuse you. Or rather, you're quite willful in your ignorance to the fact that there ARE various definitions depending on context.

Here is what is true about science, including evolutionary science:

A deity, by definition, could do virtually anything. Because this is true, there is no such thing as a test that could falsify deity. Because THIS is true, the scientific method just won't work on explanations that depend upon the actions of a deity. Deity makes science go boink. Science doesn't say deity doesn't exist... it CANNOT, because deity is not testable. However, because of deity's untestability, only hypotheses that do not invoke a deity can be a part of science.

Now... can science look at a hypothesis like "Genesis is literal history?" Sort of. We can look at the available physical evidence, and note that Genesis being literal history is inconsistent with existing scientific data and theory in virtually every discipline it touches upon, from cosmology to geology to the life sciences. However, this comes with a GIANT asterisk. Because the literal-Genesis hypothesis invokes the actions of a deity, science cannot actually disprove it. It is outside the bounds of science to fully evaluate.

And of course, we must not confuse "theism" with "Genesis-literalism." The latter is one very narrow version of the prior. There are innumerable versions of theism, and many of them have NO PROBLEM adjusting their views on the physical universe to accord with those of science. And they aren't any less theistic for it.

[Burkhard]

The above statement is logically perfectly consistent. From a roof
theoretic perspective, that's because you have two simple (or "atomic")
sentences, and these are never inconsistent. From a model-theoretical
(or semantic) perspective, this can be shown even easier: just imagine a
world where trees have really strong branches that never move. The fact
that we can imagine such a word shows that there is at least one
possible model where both sentences are true, and hence not logically
inconsistent with each other

Now, if you add a theory about trees, wind etc to the above sentences,
things get more complicated.

You could add e.g. a law-like statement of the form:

3) Whenever there is a breezy day, tree branches move in the wind

then that sentence together with the two others you mentioned:
1) it was a breezy day
and
2) the tree branches were motionless

is indeed inconsistent. So one of the three at least must be wrong,
though logic does not tell you which one.

Maybe 1) is wrong, and what you thought was a breeze was in reality a
spider crawling on your skin
2) could be wrong, and what looked like a tree is in reality a steel
replica of a tree,

Or, and most promisingly, 3 could be wrong. It is a universal,
contingent statement that is based on our experience, and these are the
easiest to falsify.

Maybe the tree was sheltered from the wind. Or it is a new type of tree
that you discovered, whose branches are so stiff they do not move in the
wind. In these and many other cases, you wod have to weaken the
universal (major) premise 3 to something weaker such as

3') in most cases, when it is breezy, tree branches are moving

But that is a simple revision of an empirical generalization, no logical
contradictions are involved

[Oxyaena]

>> one could acknowledge evolution and still be a theist...
>
> Comment above asserts Intelligent cause, unintelligent effects (RMNS) are not mutually exclusive. Yet unintelligence excluding intelligence is a perfectly accurate example of mutual exclusivity. The effect can never be used to infer the cause.

Ray, you *are* the ASS in assertion. I`m providing reasonable
explanations as to why evolution and theism aren't mutually exclusive,
and yet your brick for a head refuses to even respond to any of my
content, and you make the same assertions in every goddamn post, despite
it being refuted time and time again. I`m not doing to even dignify this
gibberish with a response.

>
> Alan cannot address because the facts dictate that the following three conclusions must be true:

Not necessarily. You have a warped view of theism in that is must
correlate to your particular brand of paranoid superstitious nonsense,
when it doesn't necessarily have to. All theism entails is a belief in a
deity or deities. So, it is indeed possible for one to be a theist and
still acknowledge evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.

>
> 1. Alan's Theism is not genuine; 2. Alan's evolution is not genuine; or 3. Alan's evolution and Theism are not genuine.
>
> Oxy, John Harshman, and Bill Rogers have all said that Alan's conception of RMNS is flawed to the point of being an absurdity. I'm being nice because all three have said much worse. So number 2 is true. Yet all three Atheists, Oxy, John, and Bill say Alan's Theism not harmed by his acceptance of RMNS however flawed. In other words we have three Atheists who approve of Alan's Theism. Fact: When Atheists approve of Theism the Theism MUST be false because Atheists would never approve of a genuine Theist, so number 1 above is true too. The fact that both number 1 and number 2 are true dictates that number 3 is true as well.

Insane Troll Logic as usual, Ray. Evolution is no more a religion than
not stamp collecting is a hobby. Your supposed "fact" is anything but
true. Just because we're atheists doesn't mean we don't consider other
people's beliefs. Your shoving words into my mouth, asshole, nowhere did
I write that I "approved" of theism. Instead, I wrote that it's possible
for one to believe in methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism and
still be a theist. Many scientists are religious and still follow
methodological naturalism. Galileo was a devout Catholic and yet he
still followed methodological naturalism.

So no, none of those fallacious "conclusions" are true. Alan's theism
may very well be genuine, you don't get to decide whether one's beliefs
are genuine or not. Just because Alan's views on evolution are flawed
doesn't mean he sincerely holds those beliefs. To be honest, you're just
being silly at this point, since you insist on maintaining these
fallacious principles despite them being refuted thousands of times over
the years, and you're just making yourself look silly while doing so.

There's a reason no-one takes you seriously, Ray.


[snip mindless drivel]
>
>
>> ...just look at the

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:47:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.

>Science neither accepts NOR REJECTS any claim that supports theism. We've been over this.

To Ray, non-assumption of divine activity is the same as
rejection of divinity. Ray's a monomaniac on this, and seems
incapable of actually thinking about it, and of
understanding the difference between "ignore" and "reject".
--

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

[Ernest Major]

On 20/09/2017 01:51, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s) of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why? And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?

Your refusal to understand natural selection may be an obstacle to
explaining things to you.

The "multiplication rule of probabilities" is not a problem per se.

The papers are paywalled, so we can't easily check to see what they say.
It seems likely that what Alan claims in the published papers and what
Alan claims here are different. What the papers claim may well be that
presenting populations with multiple challenges involving severe hard
selection reduce the chance of a population evolving resistance, even to
a negligible level. That happens to be correct, and contrary to Alan's
claims is a result of evolutionary biology. What Alan claims here is
that natural selection is inefficacious in the wild, but he fails to
offer a model in support of this claim, instead resorting the the mantra
of the "multiplication rule of probabilities" - but failing to identify
the correct probabilities to multiply.

I would not be surprised if the model in the paper assumes de novo
occurrence of mutations in the challenged populations. With the size of
bacterial populations one wonders whether this assumption is correct;
when I raised this issue his response didn't show any understanding of
the issue. Strangely he subsequently claimed that industrial melanism in
Biston betularia was the result of selection of previously existing
variants; but with the much smaller populations of Biston betularia (and
stronger negative selection?) it is likely that de novo mutations were
involved.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <opu2ei$t7$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> > "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
> >
> > The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>
> The above statement is logically perfectly consistent. From a roof
> theoretic perspective, that's because you have two simple (or "atomic")
> sentences, and these are never inconsistent. From a model-theoretical
> (or semantic) perspective, this can be shown even easier: just imagine a
> world where trees have really strong branches that never move. The fact
> that we can imagine such a word shows that there is at least one
> possible model where both sentences are true, and hence not logically
> inconsistent with each other

The problem with the above is that you are assuming a definition of
'logic' which, while perfectly consistent with philosophical and
mathematical usage, is completely unrelated to ray-usage.

Andre

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

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2017 6:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Prior to 1859, science accepted Creationism as defined in the Origin by Charles Darwin----who, prior to 1837-1838 was a Paleyan Creationist. That means Darwin accepted design and independent creation of each species during the initial 5 years of his career in science (1831-1836).
>
> Ray (Paleyan Creationist)
>

The Kuhnean paradigm changed with the publication of the *Origin*,
therefore the only relevance of this piece of filler is historical, if
it has any relevance that is. You also fail to recognize that prior to
the *Origin*, most scientists had long since rejected the claim that the
Noachian Flood was anything but mythical, and had adopted the view
(backed by evidence, unlike the Noachian Flood) that the world was old,
this had been known for at least a century and a half prior to the
publication of the *Origin*.

Evolution was also floating around in the air at the time, with
Jean-Baptiste Lamark and Erasmus Darwin, among others. The only reason
evolution wasn't widely accepted was because it lacked a suitable
mechanism, Darwin provided evolution (or "transmutation" as it was known
at the time) with a suitable mechanism, that is, natural selection.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Forgot/didn't realize what you were actually referring to, which is correct, I did say it.

I was answering a claim that said God very well could have created and unleashed natural selection, which is commonly described as an unintelligent process. IN THIS CONTEXT I observed that the adjective rules out the work of theistic intelligence. My observation was not intended to apply to other phenomena because other phenomena, unlike NS, is not commonly described as unintelligent even though it does occur.

>
> > Moving on to something more important and relevant:
> >
> > In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?
>
> Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
> modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
> selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
> no selection.

Yeah, you must have told him that at least a thousand times.

>
> > You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
> > of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
> > readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?
>
> I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
> particular independent events.

Other Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins should take notice of what you just said.

>
> > And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
> > could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
> > selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?
> My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
> population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
> for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.

Heard you say that too quite often.

>
> > After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?
>
> Nope, he's gone.

Where'd he go?

Could you tell me what he said or post the link?

Thanks.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

No one here has been arguing otherwise. What we have been arguing is that extremely simplistic model is in no way reflective of how evolution via random variation is understood to work.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

You, an Atheist, are only defending Alan's "Theism" because he's credentialed and because he accepts existence of RMNS. The fact of defense automatically renders Alan's "Theism" to be counterfeit (quote marks justified) because an Atheist would never defend a genuine Theist; that is, their worldview enemy.

One cannot argue that God approves of any person who accepts a process that says He was not involved in the production of any living thing, past or present. So Alan's Theism cannot be invoked in these context. In these context Alan is not a Theist.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:47:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
> <seand...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.
>
> >Science neither accepts NOR REJECTS any claim that supports theism. We've been over this.
>
> To Ray, non-assumption of divine activity is the same as
> rejection of divinity. Ray's a monomaniac on this, and seems
> incapable of actually thinking about it, and of
> understanding the difference between "ignore" and "reject".

Great point, Bob; ignore and reject mean the exact same thing, there's no concrete difference. To ignore X (especially God) is to reject X, however. Just so you know, the Bible teaches that when persons ignore or don't listen to God it's because God has already rejected them and intends to do them harm.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

What a sad little world you live in, that people can't have differing opinions without being "worldview enemies."

I think Alan's understanding of evolution is utterly bunk. But there is absolutely no incompatibility between theism and evolutionary science.

> One cannot argue that God approves of any person who accepts a process that says He was not involved in the production of any living thing, past or present.

Doesn't say that. In fact CAN'T say that. God being untestable, science is incapable of saying what God did or didn't do. All we can say is that, given the evidence we have, it appears that IF God was involved, it doesn't look like He was involved in the manner that a literal reading of Genesis would suggest.

That evolution is sometimes LABELLED an "unguided, undirected, and/or unintelligent" process is an operational statement, not a teleological one. The process of evolution doesn't REQUIRE any ongoing guidance, directedness, or intelligent input to do what it does. However, the teleological role of God (or not) within evolution past or present is not within the scope of science to assess.

And if you think otherwise, you don't understand the limits of science.

[Sean Dillon]

Combining threats with an inaccurate understanding of language AND SCIENCE! Its a Martinez trifecta!

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Which supports my on-going claim about misunderstanding natural selection. Alan is highly credentialed, has the capacity to understand, and yet the chorus of opposition here at Talk.Origins says he doesn't understand selection. I, on the other hand, understand natural selection as complete nonsense. If you don't have the same understanding then you don't understand natural selection.

The fact that Evolutionists contend natural selection is widely misunderstood, even by the credentialed, supports the claim that the God of the Bible designed the human brain to misunderstand any claim about reality that says He is not designer and creator. That is something the God of the Bible would definitely do. He is over-the-top clever. These facts dictate the following conclusions:

1. The degree to which one understands natural selection is in direct ratio the degree in which your brain is not in original condition.

2. The degree to which one understands natural selection is in direct ratio the degree in which one is not a genuine Theist.

I could show that it took Darwin at least 5 years to understand natural selection and accept its validity----at least 5 years.

Ray

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:35:04 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
[massive snippage]

>
> "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
>
> The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>

What if the trees are in a greenhouse? What if the branches were stacked
on the ground after having been cut? You leave a lot of room in your
statements to address the supposed contradiction.

> In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."
>
> The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility
> of the cause.
>

You and I and everyone else create "unintelligent" processes all the damn
time. What's the difference between a forest fire that starts spontaneously
(say due to a lightning strike) vs. one that's set deliberately? Do they
burn differently?

How about a rock that's kicked down a hill? Does it roll in an identifiably
different manner than one that rolled spontaneously (say after a rainstorm
washed out the dirt holding it in place)?

A clock does not need someone to move its hands continously; planets don't
need someone to push them to keep orbiting the Sun. The solar system
*could* have been magically poofed into existence in its current form,
and it would continue to move the same way as if it had formed completely
naturalistically.

Newton did far more to destroy the notion of an active, interventionist God
than Darwin could ever have hoped to.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/19/17 7:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

>>> [...]

>> Only if those first two chapters are read as literal. And God (if He exists) created LOTS of unintelligent agents of causation. In fact, science can be seen as one big catalog of all the unintelligent agents of causation God created.
>>
>
> Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.
>
> "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
>
> The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.

Really? Let's add a bit of context to it: "It was a very breezy day;
inside the greenhouse tree branches were motionless." Do you still
think it cannot be true?

> In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."
>
> The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility of the cause.

And right there Ray admits that he does not believe in God. Oh, he
obviously believes in something he calls a god, but it cannot be a real
God. A God, to qualify as such, must be greater than the human. But
Ray's god is limited in its abilities by what Ray believes. Ray is more
of an atheist, for all practical purposes, than many he accuses of atheism.

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

[Sean Dillon]

He's not highly credentialed as a biologist. In fact, he's not credentialed as a scientist at all. And he has made it clear that he came to his conclusions about evolution in 5th grade. There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence that he (like you) is engaged in highly motivated reasoning, deriving from extreme religious beliefs.

> I, on the other hand, understand natural selection as complete nonsense. If you don't have the same understanding then you don't understand natural selection.

I've seen your explanation of why natural selection is nonsense. It is just as mangled and highly motivated as every other piece of "logic" you present.

>
> The fact that Evolutionists contend natural selection is widely misunderstood, even by the credentialed, supports the claim that the God of the Bible designed the human brain to misunderstand any claim about reality that says He is not designer and creator. That is something the God of the Bible would definitely do. He is over-the-top clever. These facts dictate the following conclusions:
>
> 1. The degree to which one understands natural selection is in direct ratio the degree in which your brain is not in original condition.
>
> 2. The degree to which one understands natural selection is in direct ratio the degree in which one is not a genuine Theist.

That would be more utterly tortured "logic."

>
> I could show that it took Darwin at least 5 years to understand natural selection and accept its validity----at least 5 years.
>
> Ray

And? He didn't have 150 years of existing evolutionary biology to go on.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

So decreed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+2%3A12-36

1Samuel 2 (NIV):

"Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord....Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. No, my sons; the report I hear spreading among the Lord’s people is not good. If one person sins against another, God may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?” His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death."

Ray

[John Harshman]

That makes absolutely no sense. I conclude that your defense is that
your words have no meanings. Fine with me, since I've suspected as much
frequently.

>>> Moving on to something more important and relevant:
>>>
>>> In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?
>>
>> Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
>> modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
>> selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
>> no selection.
>
> Yeah, you must have told him that at least a thousand times.
>
>>
>>> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
>>> of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
>>> readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?
>>
>> I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
>> particular independent events.
>
> Other Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins should take notice of what you just said.

Why? Who wasn't already aware of that?

>>> And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
>>> could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
>>> selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?
>> My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
>> population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
>> for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.
>
> Heard you say that too quite often.
>
>>
>>> After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?
>>
>> Nope, he's gone.
>
> Where'd he go?
>
> Could you tell me what he said or post the link?

He said he was done here for now, and he'll be back if he once again
manages to publish another paper.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

[....]

> > > > To Ray, non-assumption of divine activity is the same as
> > > > rejection of divinity. Ray's a monomaniac on this, and seems
> > > > incapable of actually thinking about it, and of
> > > > understanding the difference between "ignore" and "reject".
> > >
> > > Great point, Bob; ignore and reject mean the exact same thing, there's no concrete difference. To ignore X (especially God) is to reject X, however. Just so you know, the Bible teaches that when persons ignore or don't listen to God it's because God has already rejected them and intends to do them harm.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Combining threats with an inaccurate understanding of language AND SCIENCE! Its a Martinez trifecta!
> >
>
> So decreed.
>
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+2%3A12-36
>
> 1Samuel 2 (NIV):
>
> "Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord....Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. No, my sons; the report I hear spreading among the Lord’s people is not good. If one person sins against another, God may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?” His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death."
>
> Ray

Ignore; reject; no regard; these are interchangeable, do not harm accuracy.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I find your rebuttal to be senseless because my explanation is logically valid, does not contain a contradiction, and exhibits correct inferential reasoning. I think you're actually contesting claims, not the expression of them.

>
> >>> Moving on to something more important and relevant:
> >>>
> >>> In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?
> >>
> >> Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
> >> modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
> >> selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
> >> no selection.
> >
> > Yeah, you must have told him that at least a thousand times.
> >
> >>
> >>> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
> >>> of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
> >>> readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?
> >>
> >> I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
> >> particular independent events.
> >
> > Other Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins should take notice of what you just said.
>
> Why? Who wasn't already aware of that?

I'm not imagining the insults I read about Alan's use of the rule. I believe Ron Okimoto, Oxy, and others derided Alan concerning the multiplication rule of probabilities.

>
> >>> And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
> >>> could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
> >>> selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?
> >> My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
> >> population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
> >> for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.
> >
> > Heard you say that too quite often.
> >
> >>
> >>> After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?
> >>
> >> Nope, he's gone.
> >
> > Where'd he go?
> >
> > Could you tell me what he said or post the link?
>
> He said he was done here for now, and he'll be back if he once again
> manages to publish another paper.

I think he was very disappointed by the fact that Peter, for the most part, refused to engage him. I sensed that he wanted Peter to confirm his mathematics.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/19/17 7:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >> Only if those first two chapters are read as literal. And God (if He exists) created LOTS of unintelligent agents of causation. In fact, science can be seen as one big catalog of all the unintelligent agents of causation God created.
> >>
> >
> > Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.
> >
> > "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
> >
> > The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>
> Really? Let's add a bit of context to it: "It was a very breezy day;
> inside the greenhouse tree branches were motionless." Do you still
> think it cannot be true?

You admit to a drastic revision, which is NOT the point. The point is that the statement cannot be true as written; let's say, as written in a letter, or novel, or even in a book explicating logic, or a post explicating logic. It's understood by all that it cannot be very breezy while tree branches remain motionless, which MEANS: the writer of the sentence has made a mistake, a contradiction, that's all that I'm saying.

Schrodinger's cat CANNOT be dead and alive at the same time, yet the mathematical formula says it is both dead and alive at the same time. This is PRECISELY why a school of physicists have decided to ignore the wave function. In other words evidence is being tossed arbitrarily because the assumptions of Naturalism are in jeopardy. Yet Supernaturalism has no problem with Schrodinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time. The fact falsifies the assumptions of Naturalism.

Correct inferential reasoning, also known as logic, does not allow Intelligence to follow from unintelligence. Why? Because unintelligence implies a material cause like abiogenesis, not an immaterial cause as found in the Book of Genesis.

>
> > In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."
> >
> > The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility of the cause.
>
> And right there Ray admits that he does not believe in God. Oh, he
> obviously believes in something he calls a god, but it cannot be a real
> God. A God, to qualify as such, must be greater than the human. But
> Ray's god is limited in its abilities by what Ray believes. Ray is more
> of an atheist, for all practical purposes, than many he accuses of atheism.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
> have." - James Baldwin

All you're doing is attempting to shame me into accepting an illogical and subjective proposition.

I direct this answer to Burk and John Bode as well.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Consider the possibility that God has designed your brain to make it
impossible for you to understand anything that shows you to be wrong.
And perhaps logic in general.

>>>>> Moving on to something more important and relevant:
>>>>>
>>>>> In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?
>>>>
>>>> Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
>>>> modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
>>>> selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
>>>> no selection.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you must have told him that at least a thousand times.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
>>>>> of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
>>>>> readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?
>>>>
>>>> I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
>>>> particular independent events.
>>>
>>> Other Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins should take notice of what you just said.
>>
>> Why? Who wasn't already aware of that?
>
> I'm not imagining the insults I read about Alan's use of the rule. I
> believe Ron Okimoto, Oxy, and others derided Alan concerning the
> multiplication rule of probabilities.

Yes, but you mistake the nature of their derision. They weren't
complaining about the math. They were complaining about the use to which
the math was put.

>>>>> And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
>>>>> could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
>>>>> selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?
>>>> My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
>>>> population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
>>>> for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.
>>>
>>> Heard you say that too quite often.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, he's gone.
>>>
>>> Where'd he go?
>>>
>>> Could you tell me what he said or post the link?
>>
>> He said he was done here for now, and he'll be back if he once again
>> manages to publish another paper.
>
> I think he was very disappointed by the fact that Peter, for the most
> part, refused to engage him. I sensed that he wanted Peter to confirm
> his mathematics.

He probably did. But Peter isn't interested, and Alan is gone.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

The God of the Bible wouldn't do such a thing because that would negate the reason-for-being of Christ: atone for sins. In order to benefit from the Atonement one must repent, confess their sins/wrong-doing.

But designing the brain to misunderstand any claim that denies God credit as Designer is quite specified----something a jealous Deity would do like the God of the Bible.

And as a reminder: evolutionary literature is replete with observations that say all kinds of people, including the credentialed, do not understand evolutionary theory. I accept the claim as a well supported objective fact. So we have three groups of people: (1) Those who understand evolutionary theory; (2) those who understand partially; and (3) those who don't. I can explain the facts as supporting Biblical Theism and design. What's your explanation of the facts? How do the facts support Naturalism?

I'm not the least bit intimidated, or embarrassed, or shy in admitting that I don't understand the concept of natural selection much less the cumulative or extrapolated theory. I can bear down and read basic explications of the CONCEPT but my mind refuses to process and remember what I have forced it to consider. I can't fathom how undirected death can result in life and produce organized complexity. It makes zero sense.

Yet I'm writing a refutation of evolutionary theory as you all know, and I'm in the drivers seat, I assure you. I've carefully researched the history of natural selection. It took Darwin at least 5 years to become convinced that natural selection caused basic species mutability. The reason it took so long is because he was convinced of design and special creation. I have the unambiguous quotations. In short: Darwin spent five years pissing against the wind, what the New Testament calls "kicking against the pricks."

>
> >>>>> Moving on to something more important and relevant:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In layman's terms could you please create a statement summarizing Alan's main claims and why these are false and/or inaccurate?
> >>>>
> >>>> Alan's main claim is that he has published the correct mathematics for
> >>>> modeling "rmns", which stands for "random mutation and natural
> >>>> selection". This is false because his model includes only mutation but
> >>>> no selection.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, you must have told him that at least a thousand times.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You answered the OP but without a summarizing statement the bone(s)
> >>>>> of contention are not as clear as they could be. For example: You
> >>>>> readily reject Alan's multiplication rule of probabilities----why?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't. It's a correct treatment of the joint probability of two
> >>>> particular independent events.
> >>>
> >>> Other Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins should take notice of what you just said.
> >>
> >> Why? Who wasn't already aware of that?
> >
> > I'm not imagining the insults I read about Alan's use of the rule. I
> > believe Ron Okimoto, Oxy, and others derided Alan concerning the
> > multiplication rule of probabilities.
> Yes, but you mistake the nature of their derision. They weren't
> complaining about the math. They were complaining about the use to which
> the math was put.

Thanks for clearing that up.

>
> >>>>> And you have repeatedly said that Alan fails to model selection. How
> >>>>> could this be? How could he publish papers that fail to model
> >>>>> selection? Whatever happened to peer-review?
> >>>> My guess: none of the reviewers were biologists, particularly none were
> >>>> population geneticists. The math is correct for some scenario, just not
> >>>> for what he claims, and it takes knowledge of biology to realize that.
> >>>
> >>> Heard you say that too quite often.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> After you create a summarizing statement perhaps Alan will do the same?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, he's gone.
> >>>
> >>> Where'd he go?
> >>>
> >>> Could you tell me what he said or post the link?
> >>
> >> He said he was done here for now, and he'll be back if he once again
> >> manages to publish another paper.
> >
> > I think he was very disappointed by the fact that Peter, for the most
> > part, refused to engage him. I sensed that he wanted Peter to confirm
> > his mathematics.
>
> He probably did. But Peter isn't interested, and Alan is gone.

:(

Ray

[John Harshman]

Ah, but it isn't a sin to be wrong if you don't know you're wrong.
Ignorance is bliss.

> But designing the brain to misunderstand any claim that denies God
> credit as Designer is quite specified----something a jealous Deity
> would do like the God of the Bible.

I agree. The god of the bible is a real dick, and that's a real dick move.

> And as a reminder: evolutionary literature is replete with
> observations that say all kinds of people, including the
> credentialed, do not understand evolutionary theory. I accept the
> claim as a well supported objective fact. So we have three groups of
> people: (1) Those who understand evolutionary theory; (2) those who
> understand partially; and (3) those who don't. I can explain the
> facts as supporting Biblical Theism and design. What's your
> explanation of the facts? How do the facts support Naturalism?

Some evolutionary theory is complicated, and it's no wonder people don't
understand it. Some evolutionary theory is simple, and the people who
don't understand that are those who desperately don't want to understand
it, like you.

> I'm not the least bit intimidated, or embarrassed, or shy in
> admitting that I don't understand the concept of natural selection
> much less the cumulative or extrapolated theory. I can bear down and
> read basic explications of the CONCEPT but my mind refuses to process
> and remember what I have forced it to consider. I can't fathom how
> undirected death can result in life and produce organized complexity.
> It makes zero sense.

Yes, god has made your brain with a defect. What a guy.

> Yet I'm writing a refutation of evolutionary theory as you all know,
> and I'm in the drivers seat, I assure you. I've carefully researched
> the history of natural selection. It took Darwin at least 5 years to
> become convinced that natural selection caused basic species
> mutability. The reason it took so long is because he was convinced of
> design and special creation. I have the unambiguous quotations. In
> short: Darwin spent five years pissing against the wind, what the New
> Testament calls "kicking against the pricks."

There are definitely pricks involved in all this. On that much we can
agree. How's that refutation going? How can you refute something you
can't understand?

[Burkhard]

r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/19/17 7:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Only if those first two chapters are read as literal. And God (if He exists) created LOTS of unintelligent agents of causation. In fact, science can be seen as one big catalog of all the unintelligent agents of causation God created.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.
>>>
>>> "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
>>>
>>> The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>>
>> Really? Let's add a bit of context to it: "It was a very breezy day;
>> inside the greenhouse tree branches were motionless." Do you still
>> think it cannot be true?
>
> You admit to a drastic revision, which is NOT the point. The point is that the statement cannot be true as written; let's say, as written in a letter, or novel, or even in a book explicating logic,

Of course it can, it would never be used as an example of a
contradiction in a logic book. The logical form of the first sentence is
1) B(w) (with intended interpretation of the parameters B: being
breezy; w: weather)
and of the second sentence
2) M(b) with M: being motionless; b:branches

There is provably no logical contradiction between the two.

They conflict with an unstated third sentence that expresses some
empirical or experiential generalization about the normal behaviour of
tress during storms, but as written, they re perfectly consistent with
each other.

[Burkhard]

r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

>>>> one could acknowledge evolution and still be a theist, just look at the

>>>> pope. You're also conflating *methodological* naturalism with
>>>> *metaphysical* naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> Science runs off the assumption that natural causes are sufficient for
>>>> the way the world works, that is *methodological* naturalism, it is
>>>> agnostic on whether the supernatural exist, and has no need for it.
>>>> *Metaphysical* naturalism posits that no supernatural entities exist,
>>>> whilst the two aren't mutually exclusive, you shouldn't conflate
>>>> *methodological* naturalism and *metaphysical* naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> That is why there is no such thing as "atheist" biology, because science
>>>> is inherently agnostic on claims regarding the supernatural, and by the
>>>> principle of methodological naturalism, resorting to anything
>>>> supernatural as a cause for natural phenomena is unscientific.
>>>

>>> Oxy parrots the illogical nonsense created to give Christians cover in accepting evolution. Alan Kleinman is overly educated yet he is unable to see the uncomplicated fact that Theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. All Oxy did was assert otherwise via making up concepts and assigning them ad hoc definitions.
>>
>> Oh my god, Ray... this never stops being any less dumb. Your "logic" isn't actually logic. No, theism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. There are a few different ways for a God and evolution to "fit together," but your thinking is to brittly rigid to conceive them.
>>
>

> Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.

That only means that science rejects some theistic models -immutable
species with an interventionist deity creating each of them separately -
but this still leaves open quite a lot of theistic models were god is
less of an incompetent tinkerer.

>
> Yet Alan, a Theist, advocates existence of natural selection, which was offered originally as refuting the independent creation of EACH species (= supernatural causation); which means Creationism, as just defined, was the episteme of science; see Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray.
>

> Alan Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has published scientific papers without having first done all the necessary research into relevant issues; history of natural selection, direct creation, and the logic of his claims in view of these objective histories. How do we know this is true? Alan remains absent, unable to defend himself against the foregoing legitimate criticisms.
>

> Instead, Alan hides behind Atheists who have taken it upon themselves to defend his standing as a Theist who readily accepts the MAIN CLAIM of Atheist biology: random mutation + natural selection causing micro-evolution. Simply pathetic for a man with two doctorates.
>

> Alan, in my criticism, represents all so called Theistic Evolutionists including Steady Eddie, Martin Harran, William Dembski, Ken Ham, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Peter Nyikos, who proudly and staunchly defends the positions of these persons as a closet Atheist.
>
>> ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God.
>
> Manifestly false: biology says natural selection is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means science has knowledge that invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is not involved with natural selection.

Not quite. It has evidence that no interventionist agency, god or
otherwise, interferes with the process in ways that are distinguishable
from what the mere application of the laws of chemistry and physics
would predict.

So some forms of theism are ruled out, but not all forms of theism.


> So the claim that evolution is Agnostic equates to a brazen attempt to suppress truth for the expressed purpose of protecting Theistic Evolutionists from being seen as accepting claims that say their God, contrary to what Genesis says, did not play any role in the production of any living thing, past or present.

Depends on the "any" and the "role" Sean has given you quite a number of
possible theistic models that give god "a" role, just not your preferred
role. God being the proximate cause of everything, but in such a
systematic way that that it can be described through universal natural
laws is one. You just fail persistently to address these forms of theism
that are not your preferred version of theism. That a problem for you,
ot for theism.

>
> This is why Alan argues for restricted non-cumulative selection, which creates the following model: God intervenes in nature, working around an unintelligent process that He created.
>
>>

> NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."
>>
>

> Sean previously asserted science Agnostic now he admits his assertion actually contained an invisible asterisk: science, according to his comment above, is ALSO naturalistic, which means science advocates Naturalism, which is true. Science uses the assumptions of Naturalism to interpret all evidence. Therefore Sean has contradicted himself.

Not really. He talks about the methodological choice that science has
made. And precisely because it is a methodological choice, it can't also
answer the question if there is anything beyond this either way.

Just the same way when you chose to measure the size of a person with a
tool that has as smallest unit inches. That does not mean you think that
there are no smaller differences, or that everybody with the same size
in inches is really the same size, just that your method does not allow
you to say anything beyond this

> He has said science is Agnostic and naturalistic. Naturalism of course is not in any way neutral concerning the supernatural, but says the same does not exist in nature.

Methodological naturalism doesn't. It says it does not have the tools to
pronounce one way or the other

>Agnosticism says "don't know" either way. So Agnosticism and Naturalism contradict. Science cannot be both at the same time. We know for a fact that science is fully natural----hence, for example, natural selection, which was offered as refuting independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

>
> And Sean's claim that God or the supernatural is not testable equates to a very predictable tenet of Naturalism. Theists of course disagree.

Some theists may do so, most don't. To measure is to compare, and for
them god is not comparable but supreme, and in particular can't be
forced into human categories.

>We know the supernatural is testable, unlike evolution, which is not testable. But I admit that when a Theist like myself says evolution is not testable the same equates to a very predictable tenet of Biblical Supernaturalism. We can admit while Sean and his Atheist cohorts cannot.
>
>>

>>> Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.
>>
>> No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.
>>
>
> Probably the most objective statement that you have ever written.
>

>>> This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.
>>
>> No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.
>>
>
> Everything written after the first word in the comments above contradicts the first word in the comments written above.
>

>>> But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.
>>>
>> Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.
>>
>
> Egregious contradictions seen above; namely: scientific evidence is Agnostic, but those who accept the evidence, Atheists, remain Atheists, and do not convert to Agnosticism.
>

>>> Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.
>>>
>> The Pope may not speak for God, but he is kind of the textbook example of a Theist, whether you find his particular brand of Theism heretical or not.
>>
>
> Sean repeats his point.
>
>>

>>> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
>>>

>> Darwin's opinions on the subject of God are not germaine. The science of evolution works just as well, whether a person believes in God or not.
>>
>
> Evasion.
>
>>

>>> Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> No, again, we accept evolution because it is such a good fit to the evidence we see. And because -- unlike you -- we don't have a theology that is THREATENED by evolutionary science, we have no reason NOT to accept it.
>>
>
> That's right; Atheists accepted Darwin's theory immediately and enthusiastically, this would include Marx and Engels. Any theory Marx and Engels accept MUST be anti-Theism. Darwin, in the Origin, argued against (Genesis) special creation. Yet inexcusably evil "Theists" like Alan Kleinman and Steady Eddie cannot figure out what that means (quote marks justified)!
>

[Barba]

I don't know exactly how is model works either, but from what he wrote and
from the comments I got that he only concerns himself with the probability of
beneficial mutations and nothing else and he applies this to the
effect of multiple antibiotics.

But doesn't that mean that his model is exactly the same and has exactly the
same results (cure) even with half the dose of antibiotic, or even 1/10th?

Isn't he advocating something that will create the same suberbug he is blaming
evolutionist for? I am sure that less antibiotics is cheaper and has less side
effect so is better if the effect is the same?

Or I have the model wrong?

B

[Bill Rogers]

Well, he's gone for now, so he won't answer, but you're right. In the development of antibiotic resistance he considers only the appearance of new mutations, not the spread of mutations once they arise, nor the exchange of drug resistance plasmids between non-pathogenic and pathogenic species of bacteria. And in the practical application of antimicrobial therapy he entirely disregards side effects, costs, ease of compliance, drug half-lives (which determine how long sub-therapeutic concentrations hang around after treatment) counterfeit drugs, and any number of factors that in the real world are more important than the "multiplication rule of probabilities." Doesn't mean that multi-drug therapy is not indicated for TB, malaria, HIV, and some forms of cancer, but he does give the impression he'd like to treat every otitis media or chronic sinusitis with a three drug cocktail of the latest generation cephalosporin, a fluoroquinolone, and chloramphenicol.

[Ernest Major]

I had made nearly the reverse inference; he claims that weak selection
has no effect. That would seems to imply that the use of antibiotics as
growth promoters in livestock feed would not lead to antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. That would be dangerous nonsense. But since
antibiotic resistance has been observed in agricultural contexts, he
would presumably concede that it happens; I suspect that he would claim
that the strength of selection is above some undefined threshold.

But your inference is equally reasonable, and similar thoughts have
crossed my mind. He does concede that the multiplication of the
probablities of individual mutations occurring in a single organism is
not always the correct calculation, as his papers (I believe) draw a
contrast between the evolution of resistance in response to successive
exposure to different antibiotics, and the non-evolution of resistance
in response to simultaneous exposure. That seems to be an implicit
concession that his mantra of the "multiplication rule of probabilities"
does not support his alleged inefficacy of natural selection.

From his comments here, I would suspect that he would concede any
natural selection observed by changes of allele frequencies, and deny
any inferred from historical evidence. He doesn't seem to have any
general quantitative prediction at all.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

What do you mean? Doesn't the multiplication rule of probabilities
guarantee that there are always sufficient numbers of different drugs at
low costs discovered?

[Oxyaena]

First logical fallacy of the day: Ad hominem

I`m not supporting Alan, you twit, Alan's views on evolution are obvious
bullshit, just like yours. What I`m saying is that Alan is obviously a
theist since he believes in a deity, and he most likely sincerely holds
those beliefs, and so you're not the one who gets to judge whether one's
a theist or not because they don't adhere to your particular brand of
paranoid superstitious nonsense. Also, you arguing that I support Alan
because he's "credentialed" is pure bullshit, all one has to do is take
a look at my previous dealings with Alan to see otherwise.

You're not only an ignorant cretin, you're a dishonest one as well.

> The fact of defense automatically renders Alan's "Theism" to be counterfeit (quote marks justified) because an Atheist would never defend a genuine Theist; that is, their worldview enemy.

I already refuted this particular wad of nonsense, again, you keep
repeating points that have been refuted time and time again. Alan's
Theism isn't "counterfeit" because he most likely sincerely holds those
beliefs. You asserting that an atheist would never defend a "genuine"
theist is complete and utter bullshit. I hold no ill will against
theists, and if their arguments are sane and reasonable, and I happen to
agree with them, I will defend them. Alan's arguments aren't sane and
reasonable, yes, but he sincerely holds them (or at least it seems that
way), so I am not the one to judge whether he is a sincere theist or
not, and neither are you.



[snip mindless drivel]

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I've said I do indeed understand NS as utter nonsense. The fact that you don't have the exact same understanding means you are the one who doesn't understand NS. No such phenomenon exists in nature. You and your colleagues in science are completely deluded. Paley remains correct. I can and will prove what I say scientifically. For the time being: Traverse to YouTube and digest the fact that natural selection in the wild cannot be observed directly as it allegedly occurs. Your god is invisible too. You believe in a cause that cannot be seen, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences. Darwin and his successors "see" something that isn't there.

And it's Atheists who have always said that Theists are deluded; we believe in a God that doesn't exist.

So one group is in fact completely deluded.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Ray, "natural selection" is merely the reality that some individuals in a population are better suited to their environment than others, and are more likely to survive and breed as a result. This reality is so utterly banal and empirically and logically obvious that to deny it is absurd.

You want to see natural selection on youtube? Watch any nature documentary in which a predator culls out the weakest/slowest/dumbest of a herd. That's natural selection in action.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:44:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:47:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
>> <seand...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.
>>
>> >Science neither accepts NOR REJECTS any claim that supports theism. We've been over this.
>>
>> To Ray, non-assumption of divine activity is the same as
>> rejection of divinity. Ray's a monomaniac on this, and seems
>> incapable of actually thinking about it, and of
>> understanding the difference between "ignore" and "reject".
>
>Great point, Bob; ignore and reject mean the exact same thing, there's no concrete difference.

See, Sean? I told you he's incapable of understanding the

difference.

> To ignore X (especially God) is to reject X, however. Just so you know, the Bible teaches that when persons ignore or don't listen to God it's because God has already rejected them and intends to do them harm.

--

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

[Sean Dillon]

I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our beloved President. It isn't that they lie, or even that they are mistaken... that would imply that they HAVE a meaningful relationship with the truth. It is simply that, from their frame of reference, truth, logic, and terminology simply ARE whatever they need them to be, to achieve the upper-hand in any situation. And having adopted a position on such issues, they simply will not ever admit even the possibility that they have erred.

[aug....@gmail.com]

If I recall correctly, Ray considers what you've just described to be trivially true. It's just when the term "natural selection" is applied to it that he balks.

[Tim Norfolk]

These discussions make me think of: https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/

[Sean Dillon]

In that case, Ray is wrong. Or, more generously, Ray is using a private definition of the term that has no bearing on what the rest of us are talking about, when we say "natural selection."

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Wrong.

My view: Natural selection consists of a handful of truisms inferred to act as a mechanism causing micro-evolutionary change. The mechanism does not exist; therefore micro-evolution has never occurred: species remain immutable, created independently.

Ray

[Oxyaena]

Really? So that means that those certain African populations who
developed a resistance to malaria never really developed said resistance?

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>My view: Natural selection consists of a handful of truisms inferred to act as a mechanism causing micro-evolutionary change. The mechanism does not exist; therefore micro-evolution has never occurred: species remain immutable, created independently.

So you think predators select their prey totally at random. Not sure
how even you can't the problem with that.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 9/21/2017 6:01 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>> I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our beloved President. It isn't that they lie....
>>
>
> All this part says is that Sean is a left-winger, a pro-Obama/Hillary zealot.


One doesn't need to be a leftist (Hillary Clinton is most definitely NOT
a leftist by any meaningful sense of the term) to see that our president
is a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur. All the above
statement implies is that you have a subjective bias against anyone who
dares criticize the Second Coming of Benito Mussolini.

>
>>
> It isn't that they lie, or even that they are mistaken... that would imply that they HAVE a meaningful relationship with the truth. It is simply that, from their frame of reference, truth, logic, and terminology simply ARE whatever they need them to be, to achieve the upper-hand in any situation. And having adopted a position on such issues, they simply will not ever admit even the possibility that they have erred.
>>
>

> Sean's core point is actually my core and on-going point:

BULLSHIT. Your "core" is nothing more than insisting on willful
ignorance regarding reality and accusing anyone who disagrees with you
of being an "atheist", as if you actually know what the term *atheist*
means.


>
> Talk.Origins is nothing other than a propaganda tank

[snip mindless drivel]

If that were true why do we even let brain-dead fools such as yourself
post here, if we're nothing more than a propaganda tank for the
Evilutionist Librul Conspiracy?




>
> TEists: How come one never sees Atheists accepting ANY teleological claim? But all of you accept the "fact of evolution."
>
> Evolutionary thinking is illogical, it violates the Aristotelian axiom that all secular epistemology, in the West, is founded upon:
>
> A cannot be A, and not A, at the same time.


What? This doesn't make any goddamn sense. What the hell are you harping
on about?

[snip mindless drivel]

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our beloved President. It isn't that they lie....
>

All the above says is that Sean is a left-winger; a pro-Obama/Hillary zealot.

>
It isn't that they lie, or even that they are mistaken... that would imply that they HAVE a meaningful relationship with the truth. It is simply that, from their frame of reference, truth, logic, and terminology simply ARE whatever they need them to be, to achieve the upper-hand in any situation. And having adopted a position on such issues, they simply will not ever admit even the possibility that they have erred.
>

Sean's core point is actually my core and on-going point:

Talk.Origins is nothing other than a propaganda tank that exists to insulate Theistic Evolutionists from the truth that they accept a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence. This agenda then requires words and phrases to be invented, and legitimate terms to receive ad hoc definitions, and claims to be adjusted to fit these made up renderings. When the subject departs Theistic Evolutionism, evolution here returns to what it actually is: a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence; hence the very reason why all Atheists are rabid defenders and promoters of evolutionary theory.

How come one never sees Atheists accepting ANY teleological claim? Yet TEists accept the "fact of evolution."

Evolutionary thinking is illogical; it violates the Aristotelian axiom that all secular epistemology, in the West, was founded upon:

A cannot be A, and not A, at the same time.

But here at Talk.Origins: Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, and Deists can accept the exact same evidence interpreting philosophy and nothing is held amiss.

Natural reality cannot support four different views of God at the same time; reality, as a matter of fact, can only support one view of God. Therefore three views of God are completely false, not based on evidence.

Sean and his cohorts here at Talk.Origins will now proceed to create ad hoc concepts and define them as needed to extricate non-Atheist evolutionary theorists from the embarrassing objective facts.

Ray

[Oxyaena]

On 9/19/2017 6:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

>>>> one could acknowledge evolution and still be a theist, just look at the

>>>> pope. You're also conflating *methodological* naturalism with
>>>> *metaphysical* naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> Science runs off the assumption that natural causes are sufficient for
>>>> the way the world works, that is *methodological* naturalism, it is
>>>> agnostic on whether the supernatural exist, and has no need for it.
>>>> *Metaphysical* naturalism posits that no supernatural entities exist,
>>>> whilst the two aren't mutually exclusive, you shouldn't conflate
>>>> *methodological* naturalism and *metaphysical* naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> That is why there is no such thing as "atheist" biology, because science
>>>> is inherently agnostic on claims regarding the supernatural, and by the
>>>> principle of methodological naturalism, resorting to anything
>>>> supernatural as a cause for natural phenomena is unscientific.
>>>

>>> Oxy parrots the illogical nonsense created to give Christians cover in accepting evolution. Alan Kleinman is overly educated yet he is unable to see the uncomplicated fact that Theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. All Oxy did was assert otherwise via making up concepts and assigning them ad hoc definitions.
>>
>> Oh my god, Ray... this never stops being any less dumb. Your "logic" isn't actually logic. No, theism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. There are a few different ways for a God and evolution to "fit together," but your thinking is to brittly rigid to conceive them.
>>
>

> Theism and evolution are, in fact, mutually exclusive: science does NOT accept any claim that supports Theism while science, before the rise of Darwinism, accepted independent creation and species immutability (= mutual exclusivity seen clearly). Read Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." He argues against Creationism while arguing for Naturalism.

There are different forms of theism, Ray. Just because your particular
form of theism is incompatible with reality doesn't mean that other
forms of theism aren't. You also invoke a "Back in the good old days"
fallacy, before the publication of the *Origin* when a scientist could
get away with saying that life was the result of special creation. But
you fail to understand that the Kuhnean paradigm changed with the
publication of the *Origin* by Darwin. Now, you see (which you obviously
don't), evolution had been floating around as an idea for awhile before
Darwin, with Jean-Baptiste Lamark and Erasmus Darwin as two notable
examples, but they lacked credibility because they lacked a suitable
mechanism, Darwin provided a suitable mechanism, that is natural
selection, with the publication of the *Origin*, thus giving evolution
credibility.

>
> Yet Alan, a Theist, advocates existence of natural selection, which was offered originally as refuting the independent creation of EACH species (= supernatural causation); which means Creationism, as just defined, was the episteme of science; see Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray.

Read above. Also, natural selection obviously exists, otherwise there
wouldn't be the evolution of antibiotic resistance in certain bacterial
populations without it.

>
> Alan Kleinman doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has published scientific papers without having first done all the necessary research into relevant issues; history of natural selection, direct creation, and the logic of his claims in view of these objective histories. How do we know this is true? Alan remains absent, unable to defend himself against the foregoing legitimate criticisms.

None of this is relevant to Kleinsman's papers, which provide a model
for natural selection, no matter how flawed said model is (which it is
very, very flawed). Therefore, none of what you have presented as
"legitimate criticisms" are actually legitimate. This has already been
established throughout this thread.

>
> Instead, Alan hides behind Atheists who have taken it upon themselves to defend his standing as a Theist who readily accepts the MAIN CLAIM of Atheist biology: random mutation + natural selection causing micro-evolution. Simply pathetic for a man with two doctorates.

Alan's gone, he's not hiding behind anyone. You're beating a dead horse
by this point, Ray. Get over it.

>
> Alan, in my criticism, represents all so called Theistic Evolutionists including Steady Eddie, Martin Harran, William Dembski, Ken Ham, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Peter Nyikos, who proudly and staunchly defends the positions of these persons as a closet Atheist.

First off, you have no criticism to begin with, and second off, this
entire piece is irrelevant. A theist is defined as someone who believes
in a deity, or set of deities, therefore, all of those people (with the
possible exception of Nyikos) are theists. You don't get to decide
whether one is a genuine theist or not just because they happen to
disagree with your particular brand of paranoid superstitious nonsense.
I've literally said this many times throughout this thread, and I`m
really getting tired of repeating myself, you brain-dead fool.

>
>> ALL SCIENCE is agnostic toward the existence or non-existence of God.
>

> Manifestly false: biology says natural selection is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means science has knowledge that invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide is not involved with natural selection. So the claim that evolution is Agnostic equates to a brazen attempt to suppress truth for the expressed purpose of protecting Theistic Evolutionists from being seen as accepting claims that say their God, contrary to what Genesis says, did not play any role in the production of any living thing, past or present.



You're again conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical
naturalism. Methodological naturalism is agnostic, it simply states that
supernatural causes are untestable, while natural causes are.
Metaphysical naturalism states that there are *no* supernatural beings
in existence, and takes a decidedly non-agnostic approach on this issue.

The Bible also says that the Earth is flat and is surrounded by a glass
dome, do you take those claims seriously, Ray?

>
> This is why Alan argues for restricted non-cumulative selection, which creates the following model: God intervenes in nature, working around an unintelligent process that He created.
>
>>
> NO SCIENCE can depend UPON God for explanations, because explanations that depend upon the actions of God are not testable. That is the FULL EXTENT to which science is "naturalistic."
>>
>

> Sean previously asserted science Agnostic now he admits his assertion actually contained an invisible asterisk: science, according to his comment above, is ALSO naturalistic, which means science advocates Naturalism, which is true. Science uses the assumptions of Naturalism to interpret all evidence. Therefore Sean has contradicted himself. He has said science is Agnostic and naturalistic. Naturalism of course is not in any way neutral concerning the supernatural, but says the same does not exist in nature. Agnosticism says "don't know" either way. So Agnosticism and Naturalism contradict. Science cannot be both at the same time. We know for a fact that science is fully natural----hence, for example, natural selection, which was offered as refuting independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).


Not really, agnosticism and methodological naturalism aren't mutually
exclusive. Again, Ray, you're conflating methodological naturalism with
metaphysical naturalism, there's a difference. Methodological naturalism
is an operational statement, not a teleological one. So therefore,
science and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.



>
> And Sean's claim that God or the supernatural is not testable equates to a very predictable tenet of Naturalism. Theists of course disagree. We know the supernatural is testable, unlike evolution, which is not testable. But I admit that when a Theist like myself says evolution is not testable the same equates to a very predictable tenet of Biblical Supernaturalism. We can admit while Sean and his Atheist cohorts cannot.


Really, can you provide any, *any*, evidence for God, right now, at this
very moment?

>
>>
>>> Atheists contend no evidence supporting Theism exists.
>>
>> No, we contend no such thing. I recognize that there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as supporting theism. I simply happen to believe that the evidence AGAINST theism is more convincing.
>>
>
> Probably the most objective statement that you have ever written.

Your snark is not needed.

>
>>> This means, objectively, that RMNS is evidence supporting Atheism which is precisely why ALL Atheists accept RMNS.
>>
>> No, we accept evolution (and its elements random variation and non-random natural selection) because they make very elegant sense, and do an outstanding job of explaining the evidence we see in nature.
>>
>
> Everything written after the first word in the comments above contradicts the first word in the comments written above.
>
>>> But suddenly RMNS is Agnostic when someone like me shows up and points out the fact that Atheism contends no evidence of God exists in nature.
>>>
>> Atheism contends that no God exists in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence to support the claim that God exists. And all of science IS agnostic with regards to the existence of God. It works exactly as well, whether one believes in the existence of a God or not.
>>
>
> Egregious contradictions seen above; namely: scientific evidence is Agnostic, but those who accept the evidence, Atheists, remain Atheists, and do not convert to Agnosticism.

Atheist and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. There's such thing as
"agnostic atheists", ever hear of them, Ray? An agnostic atheist is
someone who acknowledges that they don't know if God exists or not but
don't believe in him due to the lack of evidence, that is also called
*weak atheism*. You're conflating *strong atheism* with *weak atheism*.

>
>>> Then Oxy invokes the Pope as if whatever the Pope does speaks for God. The Reformation rendered the Papacy a heretical office long ago, acceptance of evolution by the Pope supports the heretical rendering.
>>>
>> The Pope may not speak for God, but he is kind of the textbook example of a Theist, whether you find his particular brand of Theism heretical or not.
>>
>
> Sean repeats his point.

Evasion

>
>>
>>> The fact that people like Alan cannot see that it is impossible for a theistic deity to have created an unintelligent process shows that Alan is suffering the exact same delusion as the Pope. Both care more about what the secular world thinks of them rather than what God thinks of them. Both have bowed down to the Atheist savior known as Charles Darwin. In his autobiography he called God a "revengeful tyrant."
>>>

>> Darwin's opinions on the subject of God are not germaine. The science of evolution works just as well, whether a person believes in God or not.
>>
>
> Evasion.

Evasion

>
>>
>>> Atheists support RMNS for only one reason: It says the Biblical claim that God causes nature to exist is completely false.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> No, again, we accept evolution because it is such a good fit to the evidence we see. And because -- unlike you -- we don't have a theology that is THREATENED by evolutionary science, we have no reason NOT to accept it.
>>
>
> That's right; Atheists accepted Darwin's theory immediately and enthusiastically, this would include Marx and Engels. Any theory Marx and Engels accept MUST be anti-Theism. Darwin, in the Origin, argued against (Genesis) special creation. Yet inexcusably evil "Theists" like Alan Kleinman and Steady Eddie cannot figure out what that means (quote marks justified)!

Association fallacy. Hitler ate sugar, does that mean that sugar is bad?

>
> Here is what that means via the claims of Alan Kleinman: The theistic deity of the Bible created an unintelligent agent of causation (RMNS) whereby one cannot infer His existence, but one can ascertain the falsity of the first two chapters of the Bible!
>
> Good job, Alan. God must be proud of you.

I know God isn't proud of you, since you keep repeatedly violating the
Ninth Commandment.


>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>


Oxyaena (refuter of idiotic notions)

[August Rode]

So the mechanism doesn't exist in spite of the fact that it consists of
a "handful of truisms?" How does that work, precisely?

[Sean Dillon]

Tell me, Ray: what words do you think have received "ad hoc" definitions, and on what basis do you make that claim? Please... give me as full a list as possible, so I can address them in one fell swoop.

Let me guess... that list includes:
- Natural selection
- Naturalism
- ???

What else? What other terms are you going to claim the WE are the ones misdefining on an ad hoc basis?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I might take the time out to respond to you a bit more often if you would stop attributing claims to me that I don't make. If you want to make a claim that plasmids are spreading resistance alleles, you need to tell us where those resistance alleles come from. And since I am a practicing physician who uses antibiotics on a regular basis as both single drug and combination therapies, I don't disregard my patients' complaints of side effects, these complaints are very very rare. I have very little problem with patient compliance when I explain to them how to use the antibiotics and the response to the treatment that they should see. Cost of drugs?, I treat a large number of community-acquired MRSA infections with drugs that cost less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks and I do it with combination therapy to reduce the risk of selecting for further resistance. Half-lives of drugs, keep the mic high enough until you drive the infection to extinction. Counterfeit drugs, well you got me there. If American pharmacies are selling counterfeit drugs, that's a job for the government, not a simple country doctor like me. And since I make a living treating green nasal discharge, you are asking for drug-resistant variants to arise if you treat chronic sinusitis with single drug therapy. Any chronic infection where long-term antibiotic usage is employed, single drug therapy is the formula for selecting for resistance. If you read Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel Laureate lecture, you might understand that it is the multiplication rule which is the principle governing mathematical principle for rmns. So long for now, back to work.

[John Bode]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

[snip]

> > I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our
> > beloved President. It isn't that they lie....
> >
>
> All the above says is that Sean is a left-winger; a pro-Obama/Hillary
> zealot.
>

My twitter feed is full of conservative thinkers and writers (David Frum,
Tom Nichols, Bill Kristol, David French, Daniel Larison, etc.) who all say
*the exact same thing* about President Trump. These are guys who *hate*
the Clintons on a deep and personal level and found President Obama wanting
in many respects. They're not left-wingers by any tortured definition of
the term.

You don't have to be a Democrat to recognize that President Trump is so far
in over his head he can't see the surface above him.

He's a man who's made a living bluffing and out-alpha-male-ing everyone
around him, rather than through careful application of reason and
intelligence. He says what he needs to say in the specific moment to get
out of a specific bind, and twenty minutes later he'll reverse it to get
out of a different bind.

And yeah, you share a lot in common with him.

[Sean Dillon]

Yeah, you don't have to be a zealot to observe that Trump literally doesn't care whether what he says is true.

For the record, for what its worth: Yeah, I like Obama a lot. So does a majority of the American public, which is why he was elected by a clear popular AND electoral majority twice and left office with a 58% approval rating. Whatever his flaws (and he certainly wasn't perfect) he pulled this country out of the economic tailspin he inherited from his predecessor, and brought dignity and eloquence to the Office.

I was less wild about Hillary, frankly, but when given a choice a lousy baloney sandwich and a flaming shit sandwich, the baloney is always the right answer.

I believe that Nazis and Klansmen are always bad, that gay people and black people should have the same rights and treatment under the law as everyone else, that science matters, that religion and government need to be kept separate, and that any country that would lets any of its people die of illness or starvation when it could have prevented it is guilty of crimes against humanity.

If that makes me a "left-wing zealot", I'll wear that badge with pride.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our beloved President. It isn't that they lie....

>All this part says is that Sean is a left-winger, a pro-Obama/Hillary zealot.

Both of you: Take it to one of the "politics" groups,
please.

[Sean Dillon]

Fair enough. Probably a tangent best left to die on the vine.

[John Bode]

Yup. Clinton was the best of a bad bunch, but that was a ridiculously low
bar to clear. She would have been able to execute the office effectively,
but that's about the best you could say for her.

And it really didn't help that the Democrats' message to "flyover country"
was basically, "We hate you, we hate your faith, we hate your values, you're
a bunch of pig-ignorant bigots and homophobes, and once we're in office
we'll ignore your concerns even harder than before. Vote for us."

There's a reason the Democrats are the minority party at pretty much
every level of government now, and it has nothing to do with taxing and
spending. Or gerrymandering. Or the fucking Russians.

Gah. I'm about to go off on a major rant about my people, so I'll stop now.

> I believe that Nazis and Klansmen are always bad, that gay people and
> black people should have the same rights and treatment under the law as
> everyone else, that science matters, that religion and government need to
> be kept separate, and that any country that would lets any of its people
> die of illness or starvation when it could have prevented it is guilty of
> crimes against humanity.
>
> If that makes me a "left-wing zealot", I'll wear that badge with pride.

And that's not left wing zealotry, either, that's just basic decency and
belief in the American system. "Left-wing zealots" are the ones who
accuse people of thought crimes, demand free speech be curtailed because
it is "offensive", and who are just as willfully ignorant about how the
American system works as the Nazis and Klansmen they rail against, if not
more so.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:35:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 10:30:05 AM UTC-5, John Bode wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our
> > > > beloved President. It isn't that they lie....
> > > >
> > >
> > > All the above says is that Sean is a left-winger; a pro-Obama/Hillary
> > > zealot.
> > >
> >
> > My twitter feed is full of conservative thinkers and writers (David Frum,
> > Tom Nichols, Bill Kristol, David French, Daniel Larison, etc.) who all say
> > *the exact same thing* about President Trump. These are guys who *hate*
> > the Clintons on a deep and personal level and found President Obama wanting
> > in many respects. They're not left-wingers by any tortured definition of
> > the term.
> >
> > You don't have to be a Democrat to recognize that President Trump is so far
> > in over his head he can't see the surface above him.
> >
> > He's a man who's made a living bluffing and out-alpha-male-ing everyone
> > around him, rather than through careful application of reason and
> > intelligence. He says what he needs to say in the specific moment to get
> > out of a specific bind, and twenty minutes later he'll reverse it to get
> > out of a different bind.
> >
> > And yeah, you share a lot in common with him.
>
> Yeah, you don't have to be a zealot to observe that Trump literally doesn't care whether what he says is true.
>

Again, its most fair and relevant to point out that Sean voted for Hillary Clinton.

>
> For the record, for what its worth: Yeah, I like Obama a lot. So does a majority of the American public, which is why he was elected by a clear popular AND electoral majority twice and left office with a 58% approval rating.
>

Yep, that means the same masses that voted for Obama twice, elected Trump, which can rightly be interpreted as punishing Obama for the crimes he got away with during his second term. Obama was visibly pained during the transfer of power. And his approval rating, was it conducted by the same polling entities that had Hillary enjoying a comfortable lead, which caused her to not campaign in certain blue states that ended up voting red?

> Whatever his flaws (and he certainly wasn't perfect) he pulled this country out of the economic tailspin he inherited from his predecessor, and brought dignity and eloquence to the Office.
>

Obama, by intentionally doing nothing, let North Korea obtain a nuclear weapon, and the Iran deal let's them do the same gradually. White supremacists are very happy. And he gave the Holocaust deniers a plane load of ransom cash. He should have been impeached. Wait.....the voting public did that by electing Trump and denying him a third term in Hillary Clinton.

> I was less wild about Hillary, frankly, but when given a choice a lousy baloney sandwich and a flaming shit sandwich, the baloney is always the right answer.
>
> I believe that Nazis and Klansmen are always bad, that gay people and black people should have the same rights and treatment under the law as everyone else, that science matters, that religion and government need to be kept separate, and that any country that would lets any of its people die of illness or starvation when it could have prevented it is guilty of crimes against humanity.
>
> If that makes me a "left-wing zealot", I'll wear that badge with pride.

Yep, you see no evil in arming North Korea and Iran while claiming to be doing the exact opposite. And what did Obama do for Africa? Every one knows what George W. Bush did.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Well Ray, as Bob rightly pointed out, this isn't really the venue for this conversation. And to be perfectly frank, I don't respect you enough to follow you anywhere else to have it there.

So let me return the the central point of the post that led us off on this tangent: In my experience of your posts so far, they show no actual interest in actual logic or actual definitions. Both are utterly warped in your posts, toward the constant need to get the upper hand at any cost, and never admit to even the possibility of error.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/20/17 4:10 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/19/17 7:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Only if those first two chapters are read as literal. And God (if He exists) created LOTS of unintelligent agents of causation. In fact, science can be seen as one big catalog of all the unintelligent agents of causation God created.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Logically invalid: The alleged cause cannot be inferred from the alleged effect. And when a statement is identified as logically invalid what is being said is that a contradiction exists.
>>>
>>> "It was a very breezy day; tree branches were motionless."
>>>
>>> The statement above cannot be true because a contradiction exists.
>>
>> Really? Let's add a bit of context to it: "It was a very breezy day;
>> inside the greenhouse tree branches were motionless." Do you still
>> think it cannot be true?
>
> You admit to a drastic revision, which is NOT the point. The point is
> that the statement cannot be true as written; let's say, as written
> in a letter, or novel, or even in a book explicating logic, or a
> post explicating logic. It's understood by all that it cannot be very > breezy while tree branches remain motionless, ...

I admit no revision. It is understood that, *in many circumstances*
(not just the single example I supplied), it is the case that it is very
breezy AND the tree branches are motionless. I have seen it happen.
Don't try to tell me it can't.

> Correct inferential reasoning, also known as logic, does not allow > Intelligence to follow from unintelligence.

What you call logic leads to all sorts of false conclusions.


>>> In like manner: "Theistic intelligence created an unintelligent process."
>>>
>>> The statement above cannot be true: the effect falsifies the possibility of the cause.
>>
>> And right there Ray admits that he does not believe in God. Oh, he
>> obviously believes in something he calls a god, but it cannot be a real
>> God. A God, to qualify as such, must be greater than the human. But
>> Ray's god is limited in its abilities by what Ray believes. Ray is more
>> of an atheist, for all practical purposes, than many he accuses of atheism.
>
> All you're doing is attempting to shame me into accepting an
> illogical and subjective proposition.

I am pointing out that the God you worship is made in your image, not
vice versa. As such, there is no point for anyone (perhaps besides you,
and that is arguable) to venerate it.

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

[r3p...@gmail.com]

So Sean's central on topic point says my logic is warped. But that has been my main claim made against Evolutionists: they think illogically with no awareness of the fact. Simply take the time to read their messages that address logic and see for yourself.

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:40:12 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:30:05 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

<snip off-topic digression>

>> So let me return the the central point of the post that led us off on this tangent: In my experience of your posts so far, they show no actual interest in actual logic or actual definitions. Both are utterly warped in your posts, toward the constant need to get the upper hand at any cost, and never admit to even the possibility of error.
>>
>
>So Sean's central on topic point says my logic is warped. But that has been my main claim made against Evolutionists: they think illogically with no awareness of the fact. Simply take the time to read their messages that address logic and see for yourself.
>
>Ray

Yes, you both assert the same claims against each other, that the
other is illogical with no awareness of fact.

As a reminder, the immediate point is whether "ignore" and "reject"
mean different things. Any standard English dictionary is sufficient
to settle it, and so shouldn't even be in dispute. You get a strike
for making a pointless pedantic objection.

A larger point is whether Theism and evolution are mutually exclusive.
There are those who agree with Sean, and those who agree with you,
based on issues having nothing to do with logic. You get a strike for
mangling the meaning of logic beyond recognition.

The fundamental point is whether a person with a particular POV should
be rejected simply because they argue that POV, as contrasted to the
merits of their argument.

If assuming a priori opposing argument is unsound, then one's mind is
closed, and enters a discussion under false pretenses. There is
little merit on Usenet to the Judge Roy Bean School; give them a fair
trial and then hang 'em. You get a strike for assuming you're
infallible.

Three strikes, you're out.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:30:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>>> I have come to the conclusion that Ray shares much in common with our beloved President. It isn't that they lie....
>
>>All this part says is that Sean is a left-winger, a pro-Obama/Hillary zealot.
>
>Both of you: Take it to one of the "politics" groups,
>please.

Thanks. IMHO we have enough controversy while just staying
on-topic.