Dover in Review, Pt. 2: Did Judge Jones Read the Evidence Submitted to Him in the Dover Trial?

[Bob Duncan]

Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
by John G. West

It's becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy
with the purported findings of "facts" in his lengthy 139-page judicial
opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion
that are unambiguously factually wrong--even though the correct
information was a part of the official record before him. It is
beginning to look like he didn't even bother to read or consider the
information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific
articles favoring ID.

Judge Jones writes that "a final indicator of how ID has failed is the
complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."
(p. 87, emphasis added) Again, he claims that "ID is not supported by
any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (p. 87, emphasis
added) In a footnote, he glancingly mentions one peer-reviewed article
in the journal Protein Science by Michael Behe, but complains that this
article does not explicitly reference ID. (footnote 17, p. 88).

Judge Jones shows no awareness of several other peer-reviewed and
peer-edited publications explicitly supporting both intelligent design
and Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, even though a list of these
publications was submitted as part of the record in the case. See
appendix D of the amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Thought and
Ethics (FTE) here. This appendix lists such articles as Stephen Meyer's
peer-reviewed technical article on the Cambrian explosion and
intelligent design in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington, and a more recent technical article on irreducible
complexity and intelligent design in the scientific publication
Dynamical Genetics. Judge Jones did not deny that these articles were
peer-reviewed. He simply ignored them. He also ignored the peer-reviewed
academic books like William Dembski's The Design Inference (Cambridge
University Press) and Campbell and Meyer's Darwinism, Design and Public
Education (Michigan State University Press). A number of the
peer-reviewed articles supportive of design were referenced by biologist
Scott Minnich during his testimony at trial. Was Judge Jones asleep
during that part of Dr. Minnich's testimony?

--
Judge Jones was very obviously an activist judge during the
Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005.
.

[JWS]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 8:52:16 AM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> by John G. West
>
> It's becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy

But he was accurate enough to zero in on your butthole.
ROFLMAO!!!

[Mitchell Holman]

Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c82d2efb-9239-401d...@googlegroups.com:

>
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to
> him in the Dover trial? by John G. West
>

Modern Creationist: Someone who keeps telling
us how the Dover ruling is irrelevant and also
spends years rehashing it in post after post.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-8, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:c82d2efb-9239-401d...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> > Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to
> > him in the Dover trial? by John G. West
> >
> Modern Creationist: Someone who keeps telling
> us how the Dover ruling is irrelevant and also
> spends years rehashing it in post after post.

Bob is not a Creationist.

[Bob Duncan]

It doesn't matter what he thinks about me or anyone else for that matter.

What I'm seeing is that what I'm doing is having a very powerful effect on
him. And that's just fine with me. That's all the reason I need to keep doing
what I've been doing. So shall it be.

--
Smoke and mirrors, unfortunately, were the tactics of the Darwin lobby
at the Dover trial. Judge Jones did not strike down the actual theory
of ID. His ruling addressed the ACLU's caricature of ID. At Dover, the
positive, scientific theory of intelligent design emerged unscathed and
continues to grow in persuasiveness today.
--Sarah Chaffee
.

[Bob Duncan]

Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
by John G. West

2. Judge Jones wrongly treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as
the ultimate source of the argument to design.

Drawing on theologian John Haught, Judge Jones treats Thomas Aquinas
as the originator of the ID of intelligent design, writing that “ID is not a new
scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the
existence of God. He [Haught] traced this argument back to at least
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century….” (p. 24) In fact, discussions about
the design of nature date back to Plato and Aristotle and significantly
predate medieval theology. Judge Jones would have known this fact had he
read the Foundation for Thought and Ethics amicus brief, which pointed
out (with documentation):

Ancient philosophers began formulating arguments about design long
before they had exposure to the Bible, and indeed without basing their
arguments on sacred scriptures of any kind.The Greek philosophers
Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaximander believed that life
could originate without any intelligent guidance, while Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle advocated that mind was required.33 During the Roman era,
Cicero cited the orderly operation of the stars as well as biological
adaptations in animals as empirical evidence that nature was the product
of “rational design.” [pp. 12-13]

Judge Jones either didn’t read the brief, which is part of the official
record of the case, or he again ignored the evidence simply because it
didn’t fit his predetermined conclusions.

[JWS]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 5:12:51 PM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?

Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
No matter how old the "arguments" are and who it
was that might have made then, that is sill not
evidence. It is evidence of speculation by people
who had no idea how things work. The lightning
god is gone, the thunder god is gone, pretty soon
the "I'm gonna burn you if you don't kiss my ass"
god will also be gone.

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...

> Bob Duncan wrote:
>> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
>
> Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.

Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,
that are necessary for life just happened to arise
spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.

That's what you must tell the kids....because...

"We are forced by our a priori adherence to
material causes to..produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door.”

~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

[JWS]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 6:03:35 PM UTC-6, Andrew wrote:
> "JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...
> > Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >
> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
> Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,
> that are necessary for life just happened to arise
> spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.

No.

> That's what you must tell the kids....because...
>
> "We are forced by our a priori adherence to
> material causes to..produce material explanations,
> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
> mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
> materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
> a Divine Foot in the door.”
>
> ~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

A little hyperbolic maybe but drop the last
sentence and it's OK by me.

[Bob Duncan]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:03:35 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...
> > Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >
> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.

Like Judge Jones, that clown must have failed to read the evidence that all trials must have.

This Part 2 will show the evidence that both he and Judge Jones ignored, while also proving
that "JWS" is a liar.

[JWS]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:50:12 PM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:03:35 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> > "JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...
> > > Bob Duncan wrote:
> > >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> > >
> > > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
> Like Judge Jones, that clown must have failed to read the evidence that all trials must have.
>
> This Part 2 will show the evidence that both he and Judge Jones ignored, while also proving
> that "JWS" is a liar.

Bet not. If ID had any evidence at the trial, it
would be presented ad nauseam on EN. And
they never present any evidence today even
considering all of the "science" they have done
since the trial.

> Smoke and mirrors, unfortunately, were the tactics of the Darwin lobby
> at the Dover trial. Judge Jones did not strike down the actual theory
> of ID.

Because there is no theory of ID.

> His ruling addressed the ACLU's caricature of ID. At Dover, the
> positive, scientific theory of intelligent design emerged unscathed and
> continues to grow in persuasiveness today.
> --Sarah Chaffee

Tell Sarah to quit campaigning for a theory of ID
and ACTUALLY present the theory of ID.
A SCIENTIFIC theory of ID.

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:6a63cf4e-2aeb-43a7...@googlegroups.com...
> Bob Duncan wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:

>> > "JWS" wrote:
>> > > Bob Duncan wrote:
>> > >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
>> > >
>> > > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
>
>> Like Judge Jones, that clown must have failed to read the evidence that all trials must have.
>>
>> This Part 2 will show the evidence that both he and Judge Jones ignored, while also proving
>> that "JWS" is a liar
>.
> Bet not. If ID had any evidence at the trial, it
> would be presented ad nauseam on EN. And
> they never present any evidence today even
> considering all of the "science" they have done
> since the trial.
>
>> Smoke and mirrors, unfortunately, were the tactics of the Darwin lobby
>> at the Dover trial. Judge Jones did not strike down the actual theory
>> of ID.
>
> Because there is no theory of ID.
>
>> His ruling addressed the ACLU's caricature of ID. At Dover, the
>> positive, scientific theory of intelligent design emerged unscathed and
>> continues to grow in persuasiveness today.
>> --Sarah Chaffee
>
> Tell Sarah to quit campaigning for a theory of ID
> and ACTUALLY present the theory of ID.
> A SCIENTIFIC theory of ID.

ID is an "origins model". It is the
one that ~> best fits the evidence

If you know of a better one, then
cite.

However you will not, because
you cannot.

All this tells the honest student
that our origins came from an
intelligent causation.

[JWS]

Your "model" is that a bunch of things that
you do not understand seem to "point to"
your imagination thinking that a magic man
does some unspecified things. To support
such a "model" you have to show the
designer, and then you have to show the
designer actually designing, and then you
have to show the designer implementing
the design. THEN you'll have a working
model.
The better model is biology, biochemistry,
biophysics, microbiology, genetics, and
evolution. No designer is seen. No
designer is required.

[Bob Duncan]

Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
by John G. West

3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires
supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)

Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial
record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does
NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to
willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists, who
consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical evidence
cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected through modern
science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive documentation of
this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute amicus brief
submitted in the case, available here.

As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical
evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the
products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved
is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence
alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics.

To justify his false claim that ID requires a supernatural cause, Judge
Jones also completely misrepresents the content of the textbook Of
Pandas and People. He claims at one point that "Pandas indicates that
there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which
demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature." (p. 30) In fact,
Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the opposite claim: Intelligent
causes may be either inside or outside of nature, and empirical evidence
alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this
distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated
that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not
supernatural cause, but intelligent cause." (FTE Amicus Brief, Appendix
B, Document B; emphasis added.) Also consider the following passages
from the edition of Pandas actually used in Dover (both of these
passages were highlighted for Judge Jones in Appendix A of the FTE
amicus brief):

"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the
message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent
cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own,
science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion
and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from
acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever
they may exist."(Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 7;
emphasis added)

"Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be
considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the
development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and
intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go
further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for
biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within
it, we do so without the help of science." (Of Pandas and People,
2nd ed., 1993, pg. 126-127; emphasis added)

Again, the intelligent causes detected through empirical evidence may be
either inside or outside of nature; and contrary to Judge Jones, this
point is made in the very book he cites to justify his position.
Incredibly, Judge Jones at another point in his opinion (p. 25)
misinterprets the Pandas' quote on p. 7 as further proof that ID
requires a belief in a supernatural cause, claiming:

In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works
outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to
religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent
agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot
answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy."

Contrary to Judge Jones, the above statement clearly does NOT concede
that "the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and
science." Instead, it merely reaffirms that empirical science cannot
determine whether the intelligent cause detected resides inside or
outside of nature. That further determination requires more than
empirical science. Far from being merely "rhetorical," this claim is
central to the definition of intelligent design as a scientific theory,
and it is reaffirmed and further explained in other passages in Pandas
that the Judge ignores (such as the passage on pp. 126-127 cited above).

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

> ID is an "origins model".

There's that lie again.

Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?

--
"Goddidmagic, therefore ID." 覧Andrew321's origins model

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 08:16:55 -0800, Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid>
wrote:

>"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> ID is an "origins model".
>
>There's that lie again.
>
>Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
>that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?

Does he really believe his in-our-face nonsense, rudeness and
stupidity?

[JWS]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?

I'm sure he read it and determined that there
was no evidence that supported ID claims.
Interpreted evidence that results in the
conclusion, "...seems to point to...", is not
evidence for the imagined connection.

Let's cut to the chase. Where might I see
this evidence that was presented? Is there
a book, article, or URL that I can go look at?

[JWS]

Well, I have to apologize. Reference was made
to the Amicus Brief filed by I don't know who.
I have found:
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/11/Amicus-Brief-by-Scientists-Cobb.pdf
and am reading that.

[JWS]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:41:06 AM UTC-6, JWS wrote:

I comment as I read.
1) "Amici also recognize the scientific controversy
over whether chemical evolutionary theory can
adequately explain the origin of the first life on
Earth."
*Right away a misstatement. Evolutionary theory
does not attempt to explain the origin of first life
on Earth. Your "Amicus scientists" are not very
bright.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 08:41:03 -0800 (PST), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
>I'm sure he read it and determined that there
>was no evidence that supported ID claims.
>Interpreted evidence that results in the
>conclusion, "...seems to point to...", is not
>evidence for the imagined connection.

Michael Behe almost single handedly lost the defence case when he used
the standard fundie and creationist tactic of redefining everyday
words - and was forced to admit that by his redefinition of the word
"science", astrology would be scientific.

Most of the time, this is a red herring to try and divert, but the
court wouldn't let him.

In his debates, where the format lets him get away with it, or when
he's lecturing fellow religious loonies, this works - but not in a
court of law.

[JWS]

Next is a list of PhDs:
(I'll just exclude non-biology fields of study)
2) Dean H. Kenyon - Young Earth proponent. The co-
author of "Pandas and People". (In which a court
decision prompted him to change "creationism"
with "intelligent design".) He seems to have a
dearth of papers to his name. One about cancer
generation from 1975 has been reference a
whole three times. He has worked on viruses,
but only one title found. Another interesting one
is "Acupuncture and A.T.P.: how they may be
related." Ha ha, i guess.

[JWS]

3) Scott Minnich -- Can't find any papers that
claim a designer, either intelligent nor stupid.

[JWS]

4) Chris Williams -- Unfortunately I can not easly
resolve conflicts with several other Chrises.

[JWS]

5) Comelius Hunter -- can only find references at
sites like discovery, EN, uncommondecent, and
idthefuture. Plus his book. No scientific pubs
are found.

[Mitchell Holman]

Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:90e22c58-04f9-4f1e...@googlegroups.com:

>
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to
> him in the Dover trial? by John G. West
>
> 3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires
> supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)
>
> Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial
> record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does
> NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to
> willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists,
> who consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical
> evidence cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected
> through modern science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive
> documentation of this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute
> amicus brief submitted in the case, available here.
>
> As a scientific theory,

ID is not a scientific theory.

all ID claims is that there is empirical
> evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the
> products of an intelligent cause.

That is per se a supernatural being.

> Whether the intelligent cause
> involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical
> evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and
> metaphysics.

Philosophy and metaphysics are not
science. They have no place in a science
class or a science textbook.

Even the star witness for ID admitted
is no more scientific than astrology.






Behe testimony at Dover Trial:

From the trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1...

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under
your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical
inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science
which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that --
which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so
is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other --
many other theories as well.

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:c95026f5-956f-48d5...@googlegroups.com...

> Your "model" is that a bunch of things that
> you do not understand seem to "point to"
> your imagination thinking that a magic man
> does some unspecified things.
>
> To support such a "model" you have to show
> the designer, and then you have to show the
> designer actually designing, and then you
> have to show the designer implementing
> the design. THEN you'll have a working
> model.
>

>. No designer is seen. No designer is required.

The Sphinx is a limestone statue in Egypt. But
[according to your reasoning] since we haven't
seen a designer designing and implementing the
design for its existence ----- therefore we must
conclude that its existence can be explained
only by ~naturalistic~ causes.

[JWS]

Nope.

[JWS]

6) Yvonne Boldt -- Teacher at Providence Academy, a
Catholic school. "My responsibilities include teaching
Honors and Advanced Biology classes and running
the Soil Application Research Program." She has a
handful of published papers, none claim knowledge
of the designer.

[JWS]

7) Raymond G. Bohlin -- Vice President of Vision Outreach
with Probe Ministries since 1975. Has a few actual peer
reviewed papers but his career now seems to be
writing opinion pieces in support of ID.

[JWS]

8) Russell W Carlson - Finally, and actual research scientist.
Studies various aspects of bacterial infections. Nothing in
a short description of his research seems to indicate the
unveiling of the intelligent designer. Maybe since he is
working on diseases, it' better not to.

[Frank Lee]

No, Andrew doesn't believe any of the shit he posts, nor
does he care to actually discuss it.

Post, get debunked, run away, repost, repeat.

[JWS]

9) Timothy Hoover -- another real scientist. Working on
bacterial infections and on some detailed aspects of DNA
transcription. He did not mention finding "god" in the lab.

[JWS]

That's it for qualified "witnesses" as far as I'm concerned.
Had to laugh at the Aeronautical Engineer though. He must
have flown up to heaven and verified GOB's existence.
10) Notes on the Argument:
* "...the large-scale geometry of biological history." This is
supposed to be a problem for evolution. Well, it's a problem
for me 'cause I don't understand what it means.
* "Questions remain as to how organisms are related to one
another and how we can detect such relationships." Here
is the "if you don't know everything, you don't know anything"
trope. This is why scientists go to work every day.
* "...whether microevolutionary processes can be extrapolated
to prove macroevolutionary change." The two distinctions are
meaningless until someone provides the justification for
isolating two different types of evolution. And, BTW, science
does not PROVE anything. It offers the best current explanation
for an area of study.
* "...many scientific publications have questioned whether
chemical evolutionary theory can explain the origin of the first
life from non-living chemicals." Here we go again. The ToE
does not attempt to explain the beginning of life. GET IT???
No, you still do not.
* "Amici assert that school boards should be able to take
reasonable steps to ensure that students are fully-informed
about the scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's theory
and that their curriculum is free from factual erTors, including
those that overstate the case for neo-Darwinian theory and
chemical evolutionary theory." Scientific controversies are
not intended for the student in secondary education no matter
what the field is, from abiogenesis to literary criticism.
Secondary education's goal is to teach the basics in all of the
subject matter covered so that the student is then prepared
to take on more detailed and advanced subjects.
The controversies in evolution are more like what roles are
played in chromalveolate evolution and phylogeny wi th a
focus on secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis. You need a degree
to participate in a real evolutionary controversy. Your BS
about "a designer did it so evolution is wrong" is. not a
controversy. It's a bunch of noise from a bunch of morons.

So there you are. Zero evidence presented. Zero evidence
asserted to be offered during the trial. The evidence here
is that a bunch of cry-babies want their little GOB to be
validated by a pseudo scientific fantasy. Ain't ever going
to happen.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:ofCAL.2938876$SIb3....@fx05.ams4:

If god created everything who created god?

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> ID is an "origins model".
>
> There's that lie again.

The Universe is here, and we are here.

Since we cannot go back and observe
how it happened, or reproduce it, we
construct models of how it happened.

ID happens to be the best origin model
that fits the evidence If you know of a
better origin model, then please cite.

However you will not, because there
is no better one.

Why can't you see that?

[JWS]

Did GOB make the Big Bang?

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >
> > There's that lie again.
> >

> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
>

> The Universe is here, and we are here.
>
> Since we cannot go back and observe
> how it happened, or reproduce it, we
> construct models of how it happened.
>
> ID happens to be the best origin model

What origin model? "Goddidmagic" isn't a model.

> that fits the evidence If you know of a
> better origin model, then please cite.
>
> However you will not, because there
> is no better one.
>
> Why can't you see that?

All you can do is talk about evolution. You can't
explain your own origin model.

It's like you just don't want to talk about it, other
than a passing reference pretending it exists.

So how did it happen? How does the magic work? Who
helped? How does a spirit arrange matter? Where did the
God learn chemistry and physics? What was the God's
purpose?

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:0264325e-8b6e-451e...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> ID is an "origins model".
>> >
>> > There's that lie again.
>
>> The Universe is here, and we are here.
>>
>> Since we cannot go back and observe
>> how it happened, or reproduce it, we
>> construct models of how it happened.
>>
>> ID happens to be the best origin model
>> that fits the evidence If you know of a
>> better origin model, then please cite.
>>
>> However you will not, because there
>> is no better one.
>>
>> Why can't you see that?
>
> Did GOB make the Big Bang?

"All things were made by Him;
and without Him was not any
thing made that was made."
~ John 1:3

[Bob Duncan]

Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
by John G. West

4. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design grew out of
Christian fundamentalism.

According to Judge Jones, intelligent design is not just "religious," it
is the outgrowth of twentieth-century American Christian
"fundamentalism." He makes this claim notwithstanding the fact that the
debate over design in nature reaches back to the ancient Greeks (as
pointed out above), and that the debate remained an important dispute
among scientists from Darwin onward. As explained in the FTE amicus brief:

Design was also an important part of the contemporary scientific
debate at the time Darwin's theory was developed. Indeed, the term
"intelligent design" as an alternative to blind evolution was employed
by Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller as early as 1897. Schiller wrote that
"it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of
Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." Schiller, like modern
design theorist Michael Behe, argued for intelligent design without
rejecting all forms of evolution or even common descent.

It's important to stress that Judge Jones can't point to even a single
doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID.
Indeed, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their
theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve
arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a
catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?

In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply
ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID
scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich
nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't),
neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they
don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from
fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on
scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem
with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was
seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard
textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by
a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the
fundamentalism?

To conclude, Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his
one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial
activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit
the result he wants.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Michael Behe is neither a Fundamentalist nor a Creationist. If he were either one, he would not believe in ID.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Intelligent Design originated centuries ago. Christian Fundamentalism began in the early 20th century.

[JWS]

What did he do to make the Big Bang?

[JWS]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 4:47:52 AM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> by John G. West
> 4. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design grew out of
> Christian fundamentalism.
>
> According to Judge Jones, intelligent design is not just "religious," it
> is the outgrowth of twentieth-century American Christian
> "fundamentalism." He makes this claim notwithstanding the fact that the
> debate over design in nature reaches back to the ancient Greeks (as
> pointed out above), and that the debate remained an important dispute
> among scientists from Darwin onward. As explained in the FTE amicus brief:

I'm sure Jones was referring to fundamentalist political
activities currently ongoing in the US which promote Xtian
nationalism. That GOB made everything is not the issue.
Also, could you quote the FTE amicus brief explanation
that you claim is there?

> Design was also an important part of the contemporary scientific
> debate at the time Darwin's theory was developed. Indeed, the term
> "intelligent design" as an alternative to blind evolution was employed
> by Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller as early as 1897. Schiller wrote that
> "it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of
> Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." Schiller, like modern
> design theorist Michael Behe, argued for intelligent design without
> rejecting all forms of evolution or even common descent.

Old ideas that do not work get rejected. Happens all the time.

> It's important to stress that Judge Jones can't point to even a single
> doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID.
> Indeed, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their
> theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve
> arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a
> catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?

The attack on the US educational system is the concern.
Using the ruse of ID as a scientific concept that should
be inserted into the classroom is just a tool of fundamentalists.
They do not have to promulgate the idea directly. They only
need to influence "mainstream" Xtians to do their bidding.

> In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply
> ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID
> scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich
> nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't),
> neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they
> don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from
> fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on
> scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem
> with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was
> seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard
> textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by
> a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the
> fundamentalism?

Jones is smart enough to see what is happening.
Behe is smart enough to fool people that he has
evidence for is BS.

> To conclude, Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his
> one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial
> activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit
> the result he wants.

Jones is not fooled by IDiots.

> Smoke and mirrors, unfortunately, were the tactics of the Darwin lobby
> at the Dover trial. Judge Jones did not strike down the actual theory
> of ID. His ruling addressed the ACLU's caricature of ID. At Dover, the
> positive, scientific theory of intelligent design emerged unscathed and
> continues to grow in persuasiveness today.
> --Sarah Chaffee

Fucked you anyway, Sarah.
IT'S OVER.

[Ted]

You really are that stupid. You're not just pretending.

[Ted]

You're a fucking idiot, Andrew.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> ID is an "origins model".
>
> There's that lie again.

Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
then that tells us by default that my model is the
correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
based upon fantasy.

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >
> > There's that lie again.
> >

> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
>

> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> based upon fantasy.

So you admit there is no "origins model" for
ID/creationism.

Since science has the Big Bang model, and creationism has
nothing, then by your logic, by default you must accept
the BB and discard the "Goddidmagic" fantasy.

[Ted]

You're a hopeless imbecile, Andrew.

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:29:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >

//

> >> ID is an "origins model".

> > There's that lie again.

> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> correct one.

See? Who said Andrew doesn't have a sense of humor?

Seriously? If Frank doesn't have a model, then YOURS
must be the correct one?

Not the one held by actual scientific researchers who
do actual scientific investigation into this field?

Nope, must be yours

That's frickin' hilarious!!

> I suspect you have none that are not based upon fantasy.

Where "fantasy" is defined as "anything Andrew doesn't like the sound of,
no matter how many actual scientists feel that it's correct.



Sri

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:59:16 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 08:41:03 -0800 (PST), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-6, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >I'm sure he read it and determined that there
> >was no evidence that supported ID claims.
> >Interpreted evidence that results in the
> >conclusion, "...seems to point to...", is not
> >evidence for the imagined connection.
> Michael Behe almost single handedly lost the defence case when he used
> the standard fundie and creationist tactic of redefining everyday
> words - and was forced to admit that by his redefinition of the word
> "science", astrology would be scientific.
>
> Most of the time, this is a red herring to try and divert, but the
> court wouldn't let him.
>
> In his debates, where the format lets him get away with it, or when
> he's lecturing fellow religious loonies, this works - but not in a
> court of law.

How is BdHe a religious loonie. What did he say in the trial about religion?

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:29:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >

//

> >> ID is an "origins model".

> > There's that lie again

> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> based upon fantasy.

Hey Andrew. Here's a book you'll like:

"Evolution Is Wrong: A Radical Approach to the Origin and Transformation of Life"!!!!

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/60485062

Notice that it's by this guy:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken




Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:2c8aac3c-936b-4857...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Frank Lee" wrote:

>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> ID is an "origins model".
>
>> > There's that lie again.
>
>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>> correct one.
>
> See? Who said Andrew doesn't have a sense of humor?
>
> Seriously? If Frank doesn't have a model, then YOURS
> must be the correct one?

If he doesn't have a-->better one.

> Not the one held by actual scientific researchers who
> do actual scientific investigation into this field?
>
> Nope, must be yours
>
> That's frickin' hilarious!!

When you get control of yourself, go ahead
and explain your origins model that is better
than mine.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4hdthd1sljl83p9t...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Frank Lee" wrote:

>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> ID is an "origins model".
>> >
>> > There's that lie again.
>> >
>> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
>> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
>>
>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
>> based upon fantasy.
>
> So you admit there is no "origins model" for
> ID/creationism.

No.

> Since science has the Big Bang model,

No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
being taught in the schools and presented
as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.

But serious cosmologists who require
solid evidence have rejected it long ago.

The gullible masses who don't know any
better accept it as truth, which it is not.

But even that model does 'not' explain the
origin of the biological information that
exists in every living thing.

Because that [biological information] can
come ONLY from an intelligent source.

> and creationism has nothing,

Yet Creationism is the - only- origin
model that accords with the evidence.

This means that we have a Creator.

The living God.

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4hdthd1sljl83p9t...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >> >
> >> > There's that lie again.
> >> >
> >> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> >> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
> >>
> >> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> >> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> >> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> >> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> >> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> >> based upon fantasy.
> >
> > So you admit there is no "origins model" for
> > ID/creationism.
>
> No.

Yes.

If you had a model, you'd be spamming it up and down the
net.

> > Since science has the Big Bang model,
>
> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
> being taught in the schools and presented
> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.

"Fantasized" means, when you say it, that you can't argue
with it. It's your way of running away.

BB is a model. Creationism isn't.

> But serious cosmologists who require
> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.

"Serious cosmologists" like Discovery Institute and fake
news sites.

> The gullible masses who don't know any
> better accept it as truth, which it is not.
>
> But even that model does 'not' explain the
> origin of the biological information that
> exists in every living thing.
>
> Because that [biological information] can
> come ONLY from an intelligent source.
>
> > and creationism has

> > nothing, then by your logic, by default you must accept
> > the BB and discard the "Goddidmagic" fantasy.
>

> Yet Creationism is the - only- origin
> model that accords with the evidence.

So you admit the creationism model consists of one word:
"Goddidmagic".

IOW, no model at all.

> This means that we have a Creator.
>
> The living God.

So, no creationism model, no living god, and especially
no living God.

You lose.

[Frank Lee]

Andrew: zero model.
BB: a model.

By your own rule, creationism never happened.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:f1jeth9bgtgehduj3...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew"wrote:

>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> ID is an "origins model".
>> >
>> >> > There's that lie again.
>> >
>> >> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>> >> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>> >> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>> >> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>> >> correct one.
>> >
>> > See? Who said Andrew doesn't have a sense of humor?
>> >
>> > Seriously? If Frank doesn't have a model, then YOURS
>> > must be the correct one?
>>
>> If he doesn't have a-->better one.
>>
>> > Not the one held by actual scientific researchers who
>> > do actual scientific investigation into this field?
>> >
>> > Nope, must be yours
>> >
>> > That's frickin' hilarious!!
>>
>> When you get control of yourself, go ahead
>> and explain your origins model that is better
>> than mine.
>
> Andrew: zero model.
> BB: a model.

BB happens to be contrary to the laws of
science. And has been debunked long ago.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:k8ietht5l89nqnkmj...@4ax.com...

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

And that goes for ALL of our atheist friends
out there.

So stop and THINK!

Accept the truth and forsake foolishness.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:MDHBL.2112724$odm4.1...@fx14.ams4:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message
> news:i4hdthd1sljl83p9t...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> ID is an "origins model".
>>> >
>>> > There's that lie again.
>>> >
>>> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
>>> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
>>>
>>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>>> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
>>> based upon fantasy.
>>
>> So you admit there is no "origins model" for
>> ID/creationism.
>
> No.
>
>> Since science has the Big Bang model,
>
> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
> being taught in the schools and presented
> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.
>
> But serious cosmologists who require
> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.
>

Prove it.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9C508AEAD78...@69.80.102.55...

Start here: https://tinyurl.com/2fa8rba7

There's more.

Much more.

[Oko Tillo]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 8:12:29 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9C508AEAD78...@69.80.102.55...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >>>> >
> >>>> > There's that lie again.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> >>>> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
> >>>>
> >>>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> >>>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> >>>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> >>>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> >>>> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> >>>> based upon fantasy.
> >>>
> >>> So you admit there is no "origins model" for
> >>> ID/creationism.
> >>
> >> No.
> >>

//

> >>> Since science has the Big Bang model,

> >> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
> >> being taught in the schools and presented
> >> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.

> >> But serious cosmologists who require
> >> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.

> > Prove it.
> Start here: https://tinyurl.com/2fa8rba7

Tom van Flandern...
You cannot be serious.
Really?

The guy who thinks our species arose on Mars

The guy who claims that planets spontaneously explode.

That his (non existent) "gravity corpuscles" could not
only provide us with unlimited free energy (sorry, thermodynamics)
bit also that gravity propagates faster than the speed of light
(sorry Einstein),

That Mars is actually not a planet, but a moon, the moon of a long since exploded planet.

That the so-called "Face on Mars" (shades of Richard Hoagland)
is not a simple geological feature -- a mesa -- as all our explorations
have shown, but was rather an artificial structure put there by space aliens.

From Wikipedia:

In 1976, while Van Flandern was employed by the USNO, he began to promote
the belief that major planets sometimes explode.

Van Flandern also speculated that the origin of the human species
may well have been on the planet Mars, which he believed was once a moon
of a now-exploded "Planet V".

Van Flandern supported Georges-Louis Le Sage's theory of gravitation,
according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles"
impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds.
He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles
could be used as a limitless source of free energy,
and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations
imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light,
or even infinitely fast.

Gerald E. Marsh, Charles Nissim-Sabat and Steve Carlip demonstrated that
Van Flandern's argument was fallacious.


Face on Mars
Van Flandern was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain
geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia",
are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extraterrestrial life,
probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the
asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had
exploded 3.2 million years ago.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern


Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:873341b1-fccf-41bd...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> >>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> ID is an "origins model".
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > There's that lie again.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
>> >>>> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>> >>>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>> >>>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>> >>>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>> >>>> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
>> >>>> based upon fantasy.
>> >>>
>> >>> So you admit there is no "origins model" for
>> >>> ID/creationism.
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >>

>> >>> Since science has the Big Bang model,
>
>> >> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
>> >> being taught in the schools and presented
>> >> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.
>
>> >> But serious cosmologists who require
>> >> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.
>
>> > Prove it.
>> Start here: https://tinyurl.com/2fa8rba7
>
> Tom van Flandern...
> You cannot be serious.

Since "Oko Tillo" is unable to refute the issues presented
in the link, he resorts to using the ad hominem. Which is
a logical fallacy used by those who argue..against the truth.

In spite of the BB models violation of the laws of physics,
and many other issues, he remains a staunch BB believer.

But he is fighting against the truth.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> > Tom van Flandern...
> > You cannot be serious.

> Since "Oko Tillo" is unable to refute the issues presented
> in the link,

Actually, liar boi, I provided over forty lines of refutation.
From Wikipedia.

Are you saying that Wikipedia made it all up?

Or are you saying that you actually believe that:
-- planets spontaneously explode.
-- that the human race arose on Mars
-- that a simple mesa on Mars was put there by space aliens
-- that Einstein was wrong both about gravity and the speed of light limit
-- that Mars was not a planet, but a moon of another -- also exploded planet
-- that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong

>he resorts to using the ad hominem.

What ad hom -- I could not believe that you actually
cited this utterly discredited list of pseudo science claims.

But apparently you did.

Afraid I can't help you with that.

Sri

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:24:17 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4hdthd1sljl83p9t...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >> >
> >> > There's that lie again.
> >> >
> >> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> >> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
> >>
> >> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> >> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> >> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> >> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> >> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> >> based upon fantasy.
> >

//

> > So you admit there is no "origins model" for
> > ID/creationism.

> No.

> > Since science has the Big Bang model,

> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
> being taught in the schools and presented
> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.
>
> But serious cosmologists who require
> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.

Really?

Name, oh, say five of your supposed "serious cosmologists:
Or run away; up to you.
Go:

>
> The gullible masses who don't know any
> better accept it as truth, which it is not.

Waiting for your evidence. Five cosmologists:

> But even that model does 'not' explain the
> origin of the biological information

... and with that, Andrew swerves off topic
and into the ditch.



Sri

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:s7RBL.2437472$JNZ4....@fx12.ams4:

Tom van Flandern died in 2009. And he
wasn't a cosmologist. That is your most
recent "proof"?


> There's more.


Then post it.

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:k8ietht5l89nqnkmj...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ID is an "origins model".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There's that lie again.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Aren't you ever embarrassed to prattle on about a "model"
> >> >> > that doesn't exist, requiring you to run away yet again?
> >> >>
> >> >> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
> >> >> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
> >> >> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
> >> >> then that tells us by default that my model is the
> >> >> correct one. I suspect you have none that are not
> >> >> based upon fantasy.
> >> >
> >> > So you admit there is no "origins model" for
> >> > ID/creationism.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > If you had a model, you'd be spamming it up and down the
> > net.

There we have it. No ID/creationist model.

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

> >> > Since science has the Big Bang model,
> >>
> >> No, that is a 'fantasized' model. True, it is
> >> being taught in the schools and presented
> >> as if it were a "fact" in the secular media.
> >
> > "Fantasized" means, when you say it, that you can't argue
> > with it. It's your way of running away.
> >
> > BB is a model. Creationism isn't.
> >
> >> But serious cosmologists who require
> >> solid evidence have rejected it long ago.
> >
> > "Serious cosmologists" like Discovery Institute and fake
> > news sites.

I notice you haven't been able to identify any of these
"serious cosmologists".

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

> >> The gullible masses who don't know any
> >> better accept it as truth, which it is not.
> >>
> >> But even that model does 'not' explain the
> >> origin of the biological information that
> >> exists in every living thing.

That has been answered many times.

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

> >> Because that [biological information] can
> >> come ONLY from an intelligent source.

So you claim, having repeatedly failed to support that
claim.

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

> The fact that you refuse to address this issue
> tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

Mmm hmm.

> >> > and creationism has
> >> > nothing, then by your logic, by default you must accept
> >> > the BB and discard the "Goddidmagic" fantasy.
> >>
> >> Yet Creationism is the - only- origin
> >> model that accords with the evidence.
> >
> > So you admit the creationism model consists of one word:
> > "Goddidmagic".
> >
> > IOW, no model at all.

The fact that you refuse to address this issue
tells us that you are not intellectually honest.

> >> This means that we have a Creator.
> >>
> >> The living God.
> >
> > So, no creationism model, no living god, and especially
> > no living God.
> >
> > You lose.

Thanks for playing. You may go home now.

[Frank Lee]

LOL. Like I said, you have no model.

[aaa]

On 2023-02-02 09:14, Attila wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 02:29:30 -0800, "Andrew"

> <andrew.3...@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <7UrBL.2886469$miq3.1...@fx02.ams4> wrote:
>
>> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:kk95th1p4c3dge343...@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> ID is an "origins model".
>>>
>>> There's that lie again.
>>
>> Our origins cannot be witnessed or demonstrated.
>> Which is why we only have ..'origin 'models'. So
>> what is YOUR origins model? If you have none,
>> then that tells us by default that my model is the
>> correct one.
>

> That is the greatest nonsense I have ever seen here. I
> suppose a few hundred years ago you would have said since
> your model says the stars are just lights and the Sun
> travels around the Earth you must be correct since no one
> can come up with anything different.
>
> You are assuming there are no new and totally unexpected
> discoveries yet to be made. Just because there is currently
> no alternate explanation for something is never a proper
> foundation to assume the current position must be correct.

God's philosophy is eternal. No one can beat the model taught in the
Bible. On the other hand, using a man-made scientific model to compete
with the God given philosophical model is utter idiocy. It's just like
using Newtonian physics to disprove Communism.

>
>> I suspect you have none that are not
>> based upon fantasy.
>>
>

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!

[JWS]

A simple pointed head makes everything clear.

[Tim]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:03:35 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...

> > Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >

> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
> Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,

Was dismantled at the trial and shown to be false.

> that are necessary for life just happened to arise
> spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.
>
> That's what you must tell the kids....because...
>
> "We are forced by our a priori adherence to
> material causes to..produce material explanations,
> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
> mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
> materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
> a Divine Foot in the door.”
>
> ~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

[Ted]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 14:44:53 -0800 (PST), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:

LOL!

[Oko Tillo]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 5:03:35 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "JWS" wrote in message news:f161d726-c581-437f...@googlegroups.com...
> > Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >
> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
> Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,

> that are necessary for life just happened to arise
> spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.
>
> That's what you must tell the kids....because...
>

//

> "We are forced by our a priori adherence to
> material causes to..produce material explanations,
> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
> mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
> materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
> a Divine Foot in the door.”

> ~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

Yep. And the proof of the pudding -- that the materialist
approach is the correct one -- can be summed up in Dawkins famous observation that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ


Sri

[aaa]

As usual, I see you have nothing to say about my simple point.

[JWS]

Clear. I said clear.
Don't score too high on comprehension, do you?

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:557d0b8c-2807-4dbc...@googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:

> "JWS" wrote:
> > Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> >
> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
>
> Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,
> that are necessary for life just happened to arise
> spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.
>
> That's what you must tell the kids....because...
>

> "We are forced by our a priori adherence to
> material causes to..produce material explanations,
> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
> mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
> materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
> a Divine Foot in the door.”
>
> ~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

-
-Yep. And the proof of the pudding -- that the materialist approach
- is the correct one -- can be summed up in Dawkins- famous
- observation that -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ

Fools are forced by their a priori adherence to "materialistic
only" causes to produce "materialistic only" explanations.

No matter how counter-intuitive. No matter how mystifying
and counter to the facts that lie outside of their philosophical
box. Which explains why most of our atheist friends are, and
continue to remain ~~ under deception.

[Oko Tillo]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:35:14 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:557d0b8c-2807-4dbc...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
> > "JWS" wrote:
> > > Bob Duncan wrote:
> > >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
> > >

//

[JWS claimed]: "Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any."

[Andrew replied sarcastically]:

"Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,
that are necessary for life just happened to arise
spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.
That's what you must tell the kids"

Actually, "irreducibly complex bio-machines"
have arisen by naturalistic only processes.

Take this one for example:

https://cwoer.ccbcmd.edu/science/microbiology/lecture/unit3/bacpath/T3SS_illus.html

it allows gram negative bacteria to inject us with
a whole smorgasbord of diseases, including

Brucellosis
Campylobacter infections
Cat-scratch disease
Cholera
Escherichia coli (E. coli) infections
Haemophilus influenzae infections
Klebsiella infections
Legionnaires' disease
Pertussis
Plague
Pseudomonas infections
Salmonella
Shigellosis
Tularemia
Typhoid fever

Now I claim it evolved purely by "naturalistic only" processes,
but according to your argument, that has to be wrong -- only
your God could have come up with something this complex

So: now you could rely on your God to protect you from
the wealth of diseases which this nifty little biomachine
He -- according to your argument -- had to have created
-- after all, did Jesus not supposedly say that
“If you remain in me and my words remain in you,
ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” --
or you could turn to materialistic medicine which
using a purely materialistic approach has devised
ways to protect or cure you from nearly all of the diseases
your God's deadly little machine can inflict on you.

I know which I choose.


Sri

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:y2uDL.2175552$nwq3.2...@fx13.ams4:

Christians who believe in unicorns,
dragons, zombies, a flat earth, a global
flood and virgin birth accuse others of
being "under deception".

Oh, the irony.............

[Tim]

It's simply on your head and it's the result of what made you simple. That's the point.

[aaa]

On 2023-02-04 03:36, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 23:23:44 -0800 (PST), JWS
> <jld...@skybeam.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <bf523896-9f3c-4fa9...@googlegroups.com>

> Since he uses his own personal definitions for many common
> terms there is no way to know what he comprehends from any
> comment.
>

It's just a simple point. There is nothing difficult to understand.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:f4vsth5qmgebufo3t...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "JWS" wrote:
>>> > Bob Duncan wrote:
>>> >> Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read
>>> >> the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
>>> >
>>> > Evidence presented by IDists? There wasn't any.
>>>
>>> Irreducibly complex bio-machines and factories,
>>> that are necessary for life just happened to arise
>>> spontaneously by "naturalistic only" processes.
>>>
>>> That's what you must tell the kids....because...
>>>
>>> "We are forced by our a priori adherence to
>>> material causes to..produce material explanations,
>>> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
>>> mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
>>> materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
>>> a Divine Foot in the door."
>>>
>>> ~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist
>>-
>>-Yep. And the proof of the pudding -- that the materialist approach
>>- is the correct one -- can be summed up in Dawkins- famous
>>- observation that -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ
>>
>>Fools are forced by their a priori adherence to "materialistic
>>only" causes to produce "materialistic only" explanations.
>

> Could it be because that is all there is?

No, its because that's how they [fools] think.

>>No matter how counter-intuitive. No matter how mystifying
>>and counter to the facts that lie outside of their philosophical
>>box. Which explains why most of our atheist friends are, and
>>continue to remain ~~ under deception.
>

> The only "facts" I have ever seen are those that have
> unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible supporting
> evidence.

You concede that the Universe DOES exist.

> Fact and non-materialistic are mutually exclusive.

But you cannot explain its origin by any "materialistic
only" process. Evidence that your thinking is flawed,
and that you are deceived.

[Mitchell Holman]

Skeeter <nom...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.3e486d4bb06409b998b0e3
@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <XnsAFA18582B1569...@69.80.102.56>,
> noe...@verizon.net says...

> Who said they believed in all that? Are you trying to evade something?
>


It's in the Bible and the Bible
is never wrong, right?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:7LCDL.922097$US27....@fx01.ams4:

Neither can you, it seems.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAFA1E3BE12827...@69.80.102.56...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>>>box. hich explains why most of our atheist friends are, and

>>>>continue to remain ~~ under deception.
>>>
>>> The only "facts" I have ever seen are those that have
>>> unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible supporting
>>> evidence.
>>
>> You concede that the Universe DOES exist.
>>
>>> Fact and non-materialistic are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> But you cannot explain its origin by any "materialistic
>> only" process.
>
> Neither can you, it seems.

Since no one can explain the origin of the Universe
by a "materialistic only" process, then this tells you
that its origin was by a process that was -other- than
"materialistic only".

**** CREATION ****

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:P7KDL.3152699$vSy3.1...@fx04.ams4:

"We cannot explain the origin of earthquakes,
proof of our wonderful Creator!"

(disproved by science)

"Well, we cannot explain the origin of solar
eclipses, proof of our wonderful Creator"

(disproved by science)

"Well, we cannot explain the origin of
of humanity, proof of our wonderful Creator"

(disproved by science)

"Well, we cannot explain the origin of
disease, proof of our wonderful creator"

(disproved by science)

[Oko Tillo]

//

> >> You concede that the Universe DOES exist.

> >>> Fact and non-materialistic are mutually exclusive.

> >> But you cannot explain its origin by any "materialistic
> >> only" process.

Wrongo.
Let us count the ways.

1) This will make the seventh time I've posted the following link
for your edification.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

I cannot recall that you ever came up with any
counter argument other than because-Andrew-says-so.



2) You declared, vis a vis the Big Bang, that

"But serious cosmologists who require solid evidence have rejected it long ago"

Whereupon I asked you to name just five of your made-up fictitious "serious cosmologists".
Whereupon you vanished like a snowflake in a bonfire.

3) Amusingly, one of the previous six times I posted the
quantum vacuum link, above, you "responded" as follows:

"I don't go to Google group links."


Sri

[JWS]

**** CREATION **** is not the default. I know
you think it is. And I can tell you why.
Ages ago people developed the idea that there
was some larger force at work that "did things"
in their world. Man knew that he alone could
throw a rock and kill a rabbit. He could pick up
a stick and stab a deer. He could pile up branches
and make a shelter. But there were big scary
things going on that happened without the man
doing anything. Big winds. Lightening. Thunder.
Flood. Drought. He thought there must be a
reason and the reason must be that someone,
like himself, who could "do things", someone
much bigger and more powerful must be doing
this stuff. And eventually this big thing was even
given credit for "making" everything. So this idea,
even though it is false, still hangs around with the
many people who lack a modern education.
Evolution was not "thought up" or someone
decided that it would be fun to knock down
**** CREATION **** for the heck of. it. Nature
told the people who actually looked at the world
about evolution. Nature showed those willing to
look what evolution is.
Now it seems to you that **** CREATION **** is
the default because it has been around so long.
But that is not the case. If you want to claim
**** CREATION **** then you have to provide
evidence for it. And you have none.

[aaa]

That's only a speculation of your own creation. You imagine that you
imagine God. The evidence of God is all shown in my signature. They are
things both real and non-physical. Therefore, they can only exist beyond
the physical universe. Since only God can exist beyond the universe,
they must be things existing in God's higher universe. Since we know
their existence, we should also know God's existence.

[Mitchell Holman]

Skeeter <nom...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.3e49713f5...@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <XnsAFA24FB808227...@69.80.101.53>,
> noe...@verizon.net says...

> You never read the bible did you?
>


ID has nothing to do with the Bible,
so says Duncan and Andrew and Artie/Joe.

[aaa]

ID is the modern *philosophical* theory of life that explains the theory
of Creation in the Bible. Life is always a philosophical question. There
is no such thing as a *scientific* theory of life. A scientific theory
of life is no different from a scientific theory of Communism. It's
absurd and uneducated. It's a shame of modern education.

[JWS]

It is a very simple summation events that we know
happened on earth.

>You imagine that you
> imagine God. The evidence of God is all shown in my signature.

There is no evidence of anything in your signature
except that you fantasize a lot. of silly things.

> They are
> things both real and non-physical. Therefore, they can only exist beyond
> the physical universe. Since only God can exist beyond the universe,
> they must be things existing in God's higher universe. Since we know
> their existence, we should also know God's existence.

That's just a circular argument. You start by
claiming that "they can only exist beyond the physical
universe". You need to demonstrate that before your
syllogism can be accepted.
After that, your following premises are also not accepted.
So you are really not getting anywhere at all with word salad.

[aaa]

Only in your imagination.

>
>> You imagine that you imagine God. The evidence of God is all shown
>> in my signature.
> There is no evidence of anything in your signature except that you
> fantasize a lot. of silly things.

That's blind denial.

>
>> They are things both real and non-physical. Therefore, they can
>> only exist beyond the physical universe. Since only God can exist
>> beyond the universe, they must be things existing in God's higher
>> universe. Since we know their existence, we should also know God's
>> existence.
> That's just a circular argument. You start by claiming that "they can
> only exist beyond the physical universe". You need to demonstrate
> that before your syllogism can be accepted.

Since those things are real, they must exist somewhere. Since they are
not physical, they can't exist in the physical universe. These are just
simple facts. The logical conclusion of such facts is that they can only
exist beyond the physical universe. There is nothing circular.

After that, your
> following premises are also not accepted. So you are really not
> getting anywhere at all with word salad.

What premises are you talking about? I have only shown the fact based
logical conclusion.

[JWS]

I see word salad. That's all that's there.

> >> They are things both real and non-physical. Therefore, they can
> >> only exist beyond the physical universe. Since only God can exist
> >> beyond the universe, they must be things existing in God's higher
> >> universe. Since we know their existence, we should also know God's
> >> existence.
> > That's just a circular argument. You start by claiming that "they can
> > only exist beyond the physical universe". You need to demonstrate
> > that before your syllogism can be accepted.
> Since those things are real, they must exist somewhere. Since they are
> not physical, they can't exist in the physical universe. These are just
> simple facts. The logical conclusion of such facts is that they can only
> exist beyond the physical universe. There is nothing circular.

You have not substantiated that there is something
beyond the universe, that there is a "god' who can
exist there, nor that there is a "higher" universe (whatever
the hell that is supposed to be). You have a lot of work to
do if you want anyone to believe that stuff.

> After that, your
> > following premises are also not accepted. So you are really not
> > getting anywhere at all with word salad.
> What premises are you talking about? I have only shown the fact based
> logical conclusion.

I sort of rearranged your statements into some sort
of argument. Your premises are that
1) things exist somewhere.
2) they are not physical
3) they can't exist in the physical universe
4) there is something beyond the universe
5) only "god" can exist beyond the physical universe
6) there is a higher universe
7) only "god" can exist there.
8) the conclusion of facts can only exist beyond the universe.
Now the universe qualifies as "somewhere" so go back to 1).

[Oko Tillo]

//

> I sort of rearranged your statements into some sort
> of argument. Your premises are that
> 1) things exist somewhere.
> 2) they are not physical
> 3) they can't exist in the physical universe
> 4) there is something beyond the universe
> 5) only "god" can exist beyond the physical universe
> 6) there is a higher universe
> 7) only "god" can exist there.
> 8) the conclusion of facts can only exist beyond the universe.
> Now the universe qualifies as "somewhere" so go back to 1).

Actually some things do exist beyond the Universe: the squared circle,
the Ineluctable Modality, flying pigs, proof of the Collatz Conjecture,
the Lost Chord, the stone God made so heavy that He cannot lift it,
a solution to the Halting Problem, the Holy Grail, the cat's
ineffable effable effanineffable deep and inscrutable singular Name,
and most of all, jungrire orpnzr bs nnn'f oenva.


Sri

[aaa]

That is exactly what I have done with those things in my signature.

that there is a "god' who can exist there, nor that there
> is a "higher" universe (whatever the hell that is supposed to be).
> You have a lot of work to do if you want anyone to believe that
> stuff.

Those are "higher" questions. I'm only dealing with the basic question
right now.

>
>> After that, your
>>> following premises are also not accepted. So you are really not
>>> getting anywhere at all with word salad.
>> What premises are you talking about? I have only shown the fact
>> based logical conclusion.
> I sort of rearranged your statements into some sort of argument. Your
> premises are that 1) things exist somewhere. 2) they are not
> physical 3) they can't exist in the physical universe 4) there is
> something beyond the universe 5) only "god" can exist beyond the
> physical universe 6) there is a higher universe 7) only "god" can
> exist there. 8) the conclusion of facts can only exist beyond the
> universe. Now the universe qualifies as "somewhere" so go back to
> 1).

Too bad you only manage to confuse yourself. My logic is simple. There
are things vital to us we know to exist beyond the universe. Since, by
simple common sense, only God exists beyond the universe, those things
vital to us simply by being real have proven God's existence.

[aaa]

The figment of your imagination has nothing to do with existence.

>
>
> Sri

[Oko Tillo]

//

> > Actually some things do exist beyond the Universe: the squared circle,
> > the Ineluctable Modality, flying pigs, proof of the Collatz Conjecture,
> > the Lost Chord, the stone God made so heavy that He cannot lift it,
> > a solution to the Halting Problem, the Holy Grail, the cat's
> > ineffable effable effanineffable deep and inscrutable singular Name,
> > and most of all, jungrire orpnzr bs nnn'f oenva.


> The figment of your imagination has nothing to do with existence.

Yep, just like I said, JWS: jungrire orpnzr bs nnn'f oenva.


Sri

[aaa]

What you said has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Mitchell Holman]

aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:trotrn$2kqa9$2...@dont-email.me:

So you agree that the Bible creation
account is just a theory. Not a fact.

And thus has no place being taught
as history or science.

> Life is always a philosophical question.

You keep saying that, without proof.

> There
> is no such thing as a *scientific* theory of life.

Prove it.

[JWS]

I suggest you lay off aaa for a while.

[aaa]

A philosophical theory is all about the philosophical fact.

>
> And thus has no place being taught
> as history or science.

It's philosophy. Philosophy is more superior than science.

>
>
>
>> Life is always a philosophical question.
>
>
> You keep saying that, without proof.

Philosophy is the proof.

>
>
>> There
>> is no such thing as a *scientific* theory of life.
>
>
> Prove it.

I did, and you snipped it.

[JWS]

See below in your signature.

> that there is a "god' who can exist there, nor that there
> > is a "higher" universe (whatever the hell that is supposed to be).
> > You have a lot of work to do if you want anyone to believe that
> > stuff.
> Those are "higher" questions. I'm only dealing with the basic question
> right now.

You wrote it. I assume you put it up for discussion.

> >> After that, your
> >>> following premises are also not accepted. So you are really not
> >>> getting anywhere at all with word salad.
> >> What premises are you talking about? I have only shown the fact
> >> based logical conclusion.
> > I sort of rearranged your statements into some sort of argument. Your
> > premises are that 1) things exist somewhere. 2) they are not
> > physical 3) they can't exist in the physical universe 4) there is
> > something beyond the universe 5) only "god" can exist beyond the
> > physical universe 6) there is a higher universe 7) only "god" can
> > exist there. 8) the conclusion of facts can only exist beyond the
> > universe. Now the universe qualifies as "somewhere" so go back to
> > 1).
> Too bad you only manage to confuse yourself. My logic is simple. There
> are things vital to us we know to exist beyond the universe. Since, by
> simple common sense, only God exists beyond the universe, those things
> vital to us simply by being real have proven God's existence.

Name a thing we know exists beyond the universe.
Demonstrate that "god" exists anywhere at all.
What has proven "god's" existence?

> God's spiritual evidence:
>
> Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
> happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Some of these are all well know human emotions that most
healthy humans are able to experience. The others are qualities
of life and the human condition. They are evidence of human
life, attitudes, and accomplishments.

> God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.

It is not evident to me and not evident in others that
I know, so this statement is not accurate.

> Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.

I have no covenant with and "god".

> It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.

There is no intrinsic reason for life on the earth. An
external agent would be required for that to be true,
but none have been identified.

> It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

We make our own meaning to life. It would be truly horrible
to have a meaning enforced upon us without our consent.

> Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
> Christ!

Oh... let's not.