Steady Eddie falls by the wayside, and is joined by the DoubleDoctor.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

15/09/2017
I've been waiting for a day or two for a reply from Eddie to my
request for clarification of his claim that:

>The origination of these machines has nothing to do with the replication/development process you discuss above.

>The origin of these machines points to intelligent design by their tight integration of SPECIFIC, WELL-MATCHED
>PROTEINS, each of which originated somehow, and the best explanation for them is intelligent design.
(15/09/2017)
I asked him if there were two processes going on, one for the
development of the embryo and one for the development of these complex
machines;

So far, no clarification.

The along comes DrDrAlan,, who jumps in with both (four?) feet and
claims, in answer to 嘱 Tiib's question about intelligence being
necessary for the design of life that:

>We know with mathematical certainty that rmns didn't do it.
>
> >

I have to ask, are these complex machines the result of divine
intervention or divine design?
I'd love an answer.

But will I get one?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:03:26 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by joecummin...@gmail.com:

Almost certainly not. You *may* get obfuscations, waffling
and/or goalpost shifting, however.
--

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

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:03:26 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

Well, boys and girls,

I've been waiting for 15 days for a response to my request, re:
complex machines being the result of divine intervention or divine
design, yet answer is there none, either from Eddie or Alan.

What is the problem? Is the question too complicated to answer?


You see, if these machines are actually found in organisms, which
they are, and if these machines are evidence of the Allmighty, as
claimed, then how do you distinguish them from other, simpler organs?

It wasn't an evolutionist who claimed these machines weren't the
results of natural processes, it was a creationist. To claim that it
was purely their complicated nature that indicates divine design is
vapid. I think scientists need a little more substance than that.

Now Eddie and Alan, look to your laurels, let's hear from you.

This discussion still has mileage in it.


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:16:24 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

The good DrDr apparently went AWOL, and Steadly went back to Village
IDiot, not that he ever went much beyond it.

More to the point, the two of them have only a superficial agreement
with each other. The good DrDr never said anything about Steadly's
claims, and Steadly obviously doesn't even understand the good DrDr's
claims. My impression is the only things they have in common are an
objection to Evolutionary Theory, and a fondness for posting
incoherent spam.

Your objection above is a valid one which applies to all those who mix
faith and evidence. But there is a simpler question which they never
answer: If faith is sufficient to answer any one question about the
natural world, why bother at all with unreliable evidence and
incomprehensible theory? Just accept everything on faith. OTOH if
they need to invoke material explanation about anything, that means
their faith is lacking.


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[aug....@gmail.com]

Ed latches on to anything that appears to him at first glance to support his beliefs. Whether or not he understands what he's latched on to and whether or not what he's latched on to is true are irrelevant to him.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:20:04 AM UTC-4, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:03:26 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >15/09/2017
> >I've been waiting for a day or two for a reply from Eddie to my
> >request for clarification of his claim that:
> >
> >>The origination of these machines has nothing to do with the replication/development process you discuss above.
> >
> >>The origin of these machines points to intelligent design by their tight integration of SPECIFIC, WELL-MATCHED
> >>PROTEINS, each of which originated somehow, and the best explanation for them is intelligent design.
> > (15/09/2017)
> >I asked him if there were two processes going on, one for the
> >development of the embryo and one for the development of these complex
> >machines;
>
> >So far, no clarification.

Good grief! your question should be a no-brainer for anyone. Of
course, each individual embryo has its processes unfolding in the
way appropriate to its "kind" [to use the language of creationists,
just to humor Eddie], whereas the original appearance of those
complex machines had to come about one of three ways: direct design
and creation, periodic guidance of mutations, or mutations unguided
by intelligent design.

Granted, the latter two methods make use of embryonic development
from one species to the next, but that's incidental.

Did I misunderstand your question?

> >The along comes DrDrAlan,, who jumps in with both (four?) feet and
> >claims, in answer to 嘱 Tiib's question about intelligence being
> >necessary for the design of life that:
> >
> >>We know with mathematical certainty that rmns didn't do it.
> >>

As a mathematician, I say that claim is hogwash. Our present level
of knowledge is pathetically inadequate to make such sweeping claims.
ID theory is in an even earlier embryonic stage than evolutionary
theory, and I don't expect real knowledge in this direction to
be available in the next three centuries. Maybe four centuries from now...

> >
> >I have to ask, are these complex machines the result of divine
> >intervention or divine design?

Just so there's no misunderstanding: since I think the chances are
rather slim for there to be a supernatural creator at all, and so
I think the chances are slim for ANY complex biological machine
to be of supernatural design.

As for natural intelligent design vs. natural unguided evolution,
I approach that on a case by case basis.

In Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_, two of the prime candidates for
intelligent design, in his opinion, were the bacterial flagellum
and the blood clotting mechanism of humans. A Kekule-style flash
of insight by Keith Robison and/or Kenneth Miller showed the
latter posed no obstacles for gradual evolution.

But no one has come up with anything remotely like this for the bacterial
flagellum, so it remains a good candidate for intelligent design,
but that entirely depends on how good a case can be made for
earth life having originated by seeding the earth with microorganisms
by space probes sent out by an extraterrestrial technological species
3+ gigayears ago.

> >I'd love an answer.
> >
> >But will I get one?

Maybe never from them. I've learned not to expect too much of those
two. Eddie was appreciative of some silencing by me of one of his
critics on one thread, but he clammed up when I challenged his
naive ideas on just how strong the evidence for divine existence is.

> >
> >Have fun,
> >
> >
> >Joe Cummings
>
>
> Well, boys and girls,
>
> I've been waiting for 15 days for a response to my request, re:
> complex machines being the result of divine intervention or divine
> design, yet answer is there none, either from Eddie or Alan.
>
> What is the problem? Is the question too complicated to answer?
>
>
> You see, if these machines are actually found in organisms, which
> they are, and if these machines are evidence of the Allmighty, as
> claimed, then how do you distinguish them from other, simpler organs?

It's a hopeless task to get definitive answers in this century; the
best that can be done is to weed out candidates as suggested
by the two examples I gave above. Even before the Kekule-style
insight, the idea of extraterrestrials producing the clotting
mechanism in vertebrates was grade B science fiction, and it was
a huge step towards a scientific theory of ID that it got
eliminated.

> It wasn't an evolutionist who claimed these machines weren't the
> results of natural processes, it was a creationist.

To his credit, Behe never flat-out made that claim. He is not
a creationist: he believes in the descent of all earth life
from humble beginnings on the level of prokaryotes.

> To claim that it
> was purely their complicated nature that indicates divine design is
> vapid. I think scientists need a little more substance than that.

Yes, mere complexity is too crude a yardstick. ID theorists have
been working on the idea of "specified complexity" which was actually
originated by a non-ID theorist (Leslie Orgel?) but it still needs
lots of work.

> Now Eddie and Alan, look to your laurels, let's hear from you.
>
> This discussion still has mileage in it.

Yup, but I dunno who's going to pick it up for the rest of this
month. I won't have time for it until some time next month.

Are there any other creationists around who might be appropriate
targets of your questions? Don't even think of Ray Martinez -- he
has never even tried to give plausible arguments for his two
hobbyhorses: species immutability and the existence/suzerainity of the
Christian God.

Besides, he is either a pathologically dishonest fanatic or the most successful troll ever to participate in talk.origins.

>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings

I'll try, midst all the things I have on my plate between now and
about a month from now.

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

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

>> >claims, in answer to ? Tiib's question about intelligence being

Peter makes a number of points, and I'll nod in the direction of two
of them, but I want to keep my original intention at the forefront:
whether these complex machines were designed or put thereby divine
intervention.

On the question of extraterrestrial seeding, I'm inclined to be a bit
sceptical, first and foreost because it pushes back the problem of
abiogenesis. It's so easy to say that life on planet X was seeded by
life from planet Y. It then becomes easier to say that life on planet
Y was seeded by life from planet Z Before we know where we are, we
have an infinite regress.

Remind me of Swift's little verse:

"Big fleas have little fleas on their backs to bite 'em
Little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

The question of seeding will be settled for me when abiogenesis takes
place on earth.

On ther question of the bacterial flagella, I think it shouild be
possible to find defective bacteria, whose flagella are imperfect. Has
anyone looked?
..

But, à nos moutons, as they say over here.My question was:

were these cmplicated machine put there by divine design or by divine
intervention?

This has elicited a huge silence from Eddie and the DoubleDoctor.

However, this deplorable silence shouldn't inhibit us from examining
the question.

On divine intervention, all I ask is that our creationist friends
supply the evidence.

But let's look at divine design; this is more interesting, because it
raises the question: was this design of a piece with the grerater
design, or was it special?

Remember, here we're talking about a divine creator and his creation.

If he designed these complex machines within his overall plan, then
the activities of scientists , using methodological naturalism would
find them and find nothing unusual about them.

You may say, that these machines and machinery were specifically
designed so that the faithful would find evidence of the divine hand.

But that raises a further question.

At least one of these mechanisms shows imperfection.

Look in any directory of charities anywhere and you will find a
hemophiliac charity.

I'll spell it out for Eddie, that means there are some people whose
clotting mechnism doesn't work.

The lord seems to have made mistakes, and people are suffering for it.
Is this suffering over and above our suffering for the Fall?

Are we sinners for attempting to alleviate this condition?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Peter Nyikos]

It belatedly occurred to me that this would actually be a good way
of trying to squeeze Ray into a corner. He frequently comes out with
the claim that there are no natural unguided processes, but clams up
when the case of his own birth not being divinely guided comes up.

> >I'll try, midst all the things I have on my plate between now and
> >about a month from now.
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >University of South Carolina
> >http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> Peter makes a number of points, and I'll nod in the direction of two
> of them, but I want to keep my original intention at the forefront:
> whether these complex machines were designed or put thereby divine
> intervention.
>
> On the question of extraterrestrial seeding, I'm inclined to be a bit
> sceptical, first and foreost because it pushes back the problem of
> abiogenesis. It's so easy to say that life on planet X was seeded by
> life from planet Y. It then becomes easier to say that life on planet
> Y was seeded by life from planet Z Before we know where we are, we
> have an infinite regress.

That is not my way at all. The fewer than 15 billion years since our
universe began allows for no more than three such stages by my
estimation. Each stage begins with a seeding of a different
planetary system by microorganisms, because -- except perhaps for
globular clusters, which are too metal-poor to support a technological
civilization such as ours -- these systems are too far apart for the
colonization of them by the human-grade organisms themselves, IMO.

My hypothesis dovetails with my belief that life as complicated as
our own requires a huge number of universes, every bit as conducive
to life as ours, to have a high probability. We are thus in a very
lucky universe, that overcame the incomprehensible odds against life
of our grade arriving spontaneously.

> On ther question of the bacterial flagella, I think it shouild be
> possible to find defective bacteria, whose flagella are imperfect. Has
> anyone looked?

I'm sure they have, but nothing like that has emerged despite a
perennial challenge by Behe.

>
> But, à nos moutons, as they say over here.My question was:
>
> were these cmplicated machine put there by divine design or by divine
> intervention?
>
> This has elicited a huge silence from Eddie and the DoubleDoctor.
>
> However, this deplorable silence shouldn't inhibit us from examining
> the question.
>
> On divine intervention, all I ask is that our creationist friends
> supply the evidence.
>
> But let's look at divine design; this is more interesting, because it
> raises the question: was this design of a piece with the grerater
> design, or was it special?
>
> Remember, here we're talking about a divine creator and his creation.
>
> If he designed these complex machines within his overall plan, then
> the activities of scientists , using methodological naturalism would
> find them and find nothing unusual about them.

That last bit is highly debatable. Biochemists have marveled at the
"factory-like" cell and the "computer-like" protein translation
mechanism. That is why they are far less sanguine about the number
of extraterrestrial intelligences than astronomers like Carl Sagan.


Since I don't believe that God, if there is a God, would have micromanaged
evolution to the extent that he weeded out all imperfections,
I have no comment on the rest of what you wrote below.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/