What type of IDiots are left in existence?

[RonO]

Science is just the study of nature. Biological evolution is just one
aspect of nature that science can deal with and learn more about.

The whole scientific endeavor is just to understand nature. If you are
a creationist, and you believe that nature is part of the creation,
science is able to study that aspect of creation.

The issue that a lot of creationist have with science is that science,
when done correctly, leads to a better understanding of nature, and this
understanding may not be what the creationist wants to believe about
nature. Methods have been tried and tested for their ability to give
the most accurate answers, and those answers do not have to correspond
to anyone's religious beliefs. The answers just best represent what
nature is.

The Scientific Creationists found this out when they started claiming
that they could do the science that would support their creationist
notions, but what they found out was the opposite. Their alternative
came up short every time. They found out that they did not want to do
any science, so they started just claiming to be doing the science.
Instead the god of the gaps denial junk became their standard argument.
No actual creation science ever panned out.

The ID perps understood this, and designed their political ploy to try
to get around the issue that science could only support what nature
actually was. They ended up lying to themselves and to the rubes that
believed them.

The ID Perp's claim that they were doing ID science was a lie. They
already understood that they never wanted to do any science, because
they did not want to know what the answers were for what they claimed to
be able to research. IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never
demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature
because once he does that he would know something about what his
designer did, and something about how the designer did it, and the
majority of IDiot rubes are YEC and do not want to know that their
designer diddle farted around with the flagellum over a billion years
ago, and assembled it from existing parts in some irreducibly complex
manner.

The big tent was a lie from the beginning of the ID creationist scam.
If the ID perps had actually been doing any science worth calling
science the goal would have been to come up with the best scientific
alternative, not support all the different religious alternatives. The
ID perps have demonstrated that the Big Tent was a lie from the
beginning because they now claim to want to exclude theistic evolution
believers even though they have no better evidence (possibly less
evidence) to exclude this group from their Big Tent rather than the
majority of IDiot rubes that are YEC. Most of the ID perps are old
earth creationists. The sad thing is that ID perps like Denton and Behe
are theistic evolutionists. Behe is a tweeker and Denton claims that it
likely all unfolded after the Big Bang.

[dale]

On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
> Science is just the study of nature ...

Everything is nature.


--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[RonO]

On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>
> Everything is nature.
>
>

Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of IDiots
are left in existence.

You are the religious explorer and you don't know that a lot of Biblical
theists claim that their god exists outside of space and time. Are you
claiming that their god does not exist?

Ron Okimoto

[BiologyMajor]

On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:

The polls are sketchy and dated wrt intelligent design, the only
poll I found from 2005 shows 35% reply 'unsure' on the subject
of ID being taught in schools. It appears as far as the
public is concerned ID was a limited and confusing subject
that didn't last long or gain much traction as a movement.

Creationism beliefs appear stronger than ID, however.

This Gallop poll shows 22% or less believe God
was NOT involved in the creation of man, but
trending higher over time.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx


But this poll shows some 41% believe humans probably coexisted
with dinos, with 16% unsure. I mean did they only poll Trump
supporters?

So our education system appears to be lacking in certain
fundamental respects on the history of mankind~
https://ncse.ngo/new-poll-dinosaurhuman-coexistence

Here's a nice set of polls on the subject on creationism
by the National Center for Science Education
https://ncse.ngo/polls-creationism




--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

[dale]

On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>>
>> Everything is nature.
>>
>>
> Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of IDiots
> are left in existence.

Do you know of something that is not part of nature?

>
> You are the religious explorer and you don't know that a lot of Biblical
> theists claim that their god exists outside of space and time.  Are you
> claiming that their god does not exist?
>

At a minimum the concept of divinity is thought of when it comes to mind.

Concepts are natural.

Some concepts might not come to life. Still they are natural.

Actions of divinity are tremendous in history. Especially if
Universalism is considered.

[RonO]

On 7/14/2020 7:19 PM, dale wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>>>
>>> Everything is nature.
>>>
>>>
>> Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of
>> IDiots are left in existence.
>
> Do you know of something that is not part of nature?

You should have read further.

>
>
>>
>> You are the religious explorer and you don't know that a lot of
>> Biblical theists claim that their god exists outside of space and
>> time.  Are you claiming that their god does not exist?
>>
>
> At a minimum the concept of divinity is thought of when it comes to mind.
>
> Concepts are natural.
>
> Some concepts might not come to life. Still they are natural.
>
> Actions of divinity are tremendous in history. Especially if
> Universalism is considered.
>
>

You just do not get reality do you.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:19:58 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
> >> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
> >>> Science is just the study of nature ...
> >>
> >> Everything is nature.
> >>
> >>
> > Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of IDiots
> > are left in existence.
>
> Do you know of something that is not part of nature?
>

Ron has ridden his likely horse so much that he is severely bow-legged, and can't tell what is natural and what is un-natural.

[dale]

Nature is reality!

Somethings I think are on-topic here are:

1)Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)
2)First cause argument
3)Biogenesis/creationism
4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)

Discuss?

[BiologyMajor]

Well how many acts of creation are there?

If we say that there is the creation of the universe
and the creation of life. And all else is respectively
derivative, then we can make some conclusions.

First God must predate this universe, so He can't
have any physical existence within our universe.

Second God predates life so He can't be a living
being.

Next God must hold within all the needed characteristics
to account for the entirety of the universe and life.
Like a seed holding within all that's needed to
account for a tree or a forest.

So God must be self existent, not dependent on previous
things, and capable of infinite growth.

Since such is not within our ability to directly experience
or prove, we have only analogical methods to grapple with
this question.

I would say a good analogy would be the creation of a
novel idea. An idea doesn't have a physical existence
and can have infinite potential for growth.

But an idea is dependent upon things that came before
namely facts that have been jumbled until a novel
combination has been generated.

Or an idea is dependent upon the interaction of the
qualitative ...opposites of facts and imagination.

And the next step would be to place those opposites
in abstract form so it can be applied to God.

Facts and imagination, in abstract form, would be
that which is constant, and imagination would be
that which is constantly changing.

Where they meet would be where God is found.

Perhaps an analogy of that convergence would be
a sea shore. Where the solid ground meets the
shifting seas.

Where our perspective, the observer, defines
what is observed. Close up it appears chaotic
far away constant.

Instead of the observed defining itself, for us.

God would then be like the Mona Lisa smile.
An elegant cloud of uncertainty, defined
differently by each and every observer
depending on their 'perspective'.

The Mona Lisa smile. (mind)
A vast interstellar cloud of gas and dust (universe)
A primordial soup. (life)

All elegant clouds of uncertainty that are themselves
random or without order, and hence independent, and
which hold within infinite possibilities for growth.

Just look for that one place that can't be defined
and there you'll find God.

Is it any wonder the question of God is eternal
and mysterious? As it should be.

The solution, or God, is found in the one place
there can be no solution.

Search for that place, instead of our long habit
of searching for certainty.

[dale]

Nice read !!!!

I differ a bit on some things though.

Will get back tomorrow.

[RonO]

You have never shown that you understand what the situation is for the 4
above things that you want to discuss. Just think about has sad your
first cause argument has been.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.
It has been that way since the bait and switch started to go down.
IDiocy lost the support of the informed, competent and honest back in
2002. At that time there were IDEA (IDiot/creationist) college clubs
that were sponsored by Casey Luskin's group down in San Diego. They
were mostly creation science clubs that had converted over to the
intelligent design scam. After the bait and switch went down all but a
couple of those organizations had quit and shut down by Dover, and if
you go to the IDEA web site it looks like none of the clubs survived
after Dover. These college clubs wanted to discuss the science, and
when they were told that they had to bend over for the switch scam the
students lost interest.

http://www.ideacenter.org/

I was participating on the ARN discussion groups when the bait and
switch went down in 2002, and Mike Gene was the only IDiot to comment on
reality once it became clear that no ID was going to be taught in Ohio,
and mike Gene claimed that he had given up on teaching ID back in 1999.
Mike Gene was an IDiot's pseudonym for a person who had attended the
early ID perp conferences, and he apparently was convinced that the ID
science was a no show just 4 years after the start of the ID scam unit
of the Discovery Institute. It did not stop Mike Gene from continuing
to support the ID scam, and Mike Gene did not admit that the ID science
had never existed until the IDiot loss in Dover in 2005. All the other
IDiots just ran from reality. Mike Gene even published an IDiot book
after the bait and Switch had started to go down.

The way that the current IDiots on TO treat the Top Six that they have
gotten from the ID perps indicates that there definitely are no
informed, competent and honest IDiots left. They can't even face the
best of the IDiot god of the gaps stupidity in a straight forward and
honest manner.

You should also note that churches like the Assembly of God church are
trying to change their theology to an old earth theology after the
failure of scientific creationism, and the intelligent design
creationist scam. A lot of the more honest creationists do not want to
bend over for the switch scam, and they understand what a bogus scam
intelligent design has been. The ID perps likely killed any hope of
keeping the honest creationists when they lied about not being the same
as the scientific creationists, but ended up using the failed scientific
creationists denial arguments of the Top Six. The ID perps had made a
point about not being like the losers that were the scientific
creationists, and what did they end up doing? When creation science had
failed to amount to anything the scientific creationists were using the
same god of the gaps denial arguments to try to continue to look sciency
as the the ID perps are currently using, and they are only using the Top
Six for the same reasons that the scientific creationists used the Top
Six (to look like ID might be science). The IDiots and ID perps
obviously do not want to understand anything about the Top Six. Just
look at how MarkE used the OoL (#3) and only wanted to use it for denial
purposes, and didn't want to know how his designer fit into it. The ID
perps and the scientific creationists may use the Big Bang (#1) for
denial purposes, but they do not want to deal with something their
designer may have done 13 billion years ago. As far as I know most of
the IDiots are still YEC, and the most recent Top Six event was
occurring 2 to 10 million years ago (#6, gaps in the human fossil record).

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/14/20 5:50 PM, dale wrote:
>> [...]

> Nature is reality!
>
> Somethings I think are on-topic here are:
>
> 1)Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)
> 2)First cause argument
> 3)Biogenesis/creationism
> 4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)
>
> Discuss?

Learn first. Only then discuss.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[RonO]

Glenn has resorted to lying about what I write. He can't do anything
else, but run, and he has run from lying about what I write twice
recently. It doesn't seem to affect Glenn to be caught lying. It
hasn't stopped him.

What Glenn can't deal with is that what I wrote is just as applicable to
IDiots like himself as it has always been. Lying to himself about it is
all that he can do.

He could try to counter it in some way, but he can't. He could try to
deal with what IDiocy is at this time, but he can't do that either. The
ID perps gave all the IDiots their best over 2 and a half years ago, and
all Glenn can do is run from their Top Six. It took the ID perps over
20 years to finally tell the IDiot rubes the best of what they had, and
there aren't any IDiots that can deal with that reality on TO. No
IDiots anywhere seem to have dealt with the Top Six. The ID perps never
retracted their claims, and no IDiot can deal with reality.

What kind of IDiot can run from the Top Six and still go back to the
same source for second rate junk that did not make the Top Six list?
Glenn has been that type of IDiot for 2 and a half years. The ID perps
never retracted their Top Six list, and they even put up one at a time
every once in a while at their creationist news site, but Glenn is still
doing the same stupid things.

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

On 7/14/2020 10:53 PM, BiologyMajor wrote:

I think to an omniscient God an eternity might be finite.

God might choose cyclical nature.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
> > Science is just the study of nature ...
>
> Everything is nature.
>
>

The unnatural cannot exist. If something exists, it exists within nature.
All living things take from their external environment, reshape or repurpose it and then use it to their benefit. Hence, a skyscraper is similar to a beaver's dam.

It is pointless to say that something which exists is somehow unnatural.

[dale]

On 7/15/2020 8:32 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>>
>> Everything is nature.
>>
>>
>
> The unnatural cannot exist. If something exists, it exists within nature.
> All living things take from their external environment, reshape or repurpose it and then use it to their benefit. Hence, a skyscraper is similar to a beaver's dam.
>
> It is pointless to say that something which exists is somehow unnatural.
>

Just what I said!

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:34:58 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
> > On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
> > > Science is just the study of nature ...
> >
> > Everything is nature.
> >
> >
>
> The unnatural cannot exist. If something exists, it exists within nature.
> All living things take from their external environment, reshape or repurpose it and then use it to their benefit. Hence, a skyscraper is similar to a beaver's dam.
>
> It is pointless to say that something which exists is somehow unnatural.
>

" The mass of the Higgs-boson is unnatural in this sense, so is the cosmological constant, and the theta-parameter."

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/search?q=naturalness+

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

"unnatural" has multiple definitions. The article you cite above
identifies two definitions, both completely different than the one
used in this thread. Which makes your cite a non-sequitur.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

A bunch of drivel, but nothing referenced, especially not this:

> IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never
> demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature

Minnich did it for him, wrt one form of the bacterial flagellum,
and even greatly improved on Behe, who only identified four
indispensable components, complexes of single molecules. Minnich
showed each and every one of the molecules was essential to swimming.

Read the Dover transcript, and learn something.

You will also learn that Behe shot down Doolittle's claim that the
part of the clotting system that Behe identified as IC in humans was not
IC in in mice.

And your irrational argument for why you made that stupid claim
about Behe just shows what an abysmal reasoner you are:

> because once he does that he would know something about what his
> designer did, and something about how the designer did it, and the
> majority of IDiot rubes are YEC and do not want to know that their
> designer diddle farted around with the flagellum over a billion years
> ago, and assembled it from existing parts in some irreducibly complex
> manner.

Behe cares about science, more than you do; and so he risked alienating
the YEC rubes by arguing more effectively for common descent in his second
and third books than I've ever seen you argue.

You on the other hand don't dare risk alienating
your main supporters, the atheists Oxyaena and jillery, by arguing
for the existence of a creator, despite having claimed to believe in it.


Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
This post has a good scientific component,
very relevant to what talk.origins was set up for.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 7:39:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 7:27 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:19:58 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
> >> On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>> On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
> >>>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
> >>>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Everything is nature.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of IDiots
> >>> are left in existence.
> >>
> >> Do you know of something that is not part of nature?
> >>
> > Ron has ridden his likely horse so much that he is severely bow-legged, and can't tell what is natural and what is un-natural.
> >
>
> Glenn has resorted to lying about what I write.

You obviously aren't referring to what he wrote above. None of what you
write addresses what he wrote just now.

> He can't do anything
> else, but run, and he has run from lying about what I write twice
> recently.

None of the unidentified alleged lies is described below.

> It doesn't seem to affect Glenn to be caught lying.

On the vanishingly small chance that you actually caught

Welcome to the real world, Ron O. It never affected Burkhard to be caught
lying about how no one demanded that I read the article that Carlip
supposedly summarized in reply to Ron Dean.

It never affected Burkhard to have his lie documented for him, and so
he replied to the documentation, leaving it in, and never acknowledging
its existence. He went on adhering to:

The Unwritten Law in T.O. for Those in Mutual See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil Relationship with At Least Eight People:

If you don't admit to lying, you cannot be successfully charged with lying.


Are you in Burkhard's hallowed company, Ron O? or are you still in Burkhard's killfile
where he put you seven or eight years ago? [I've lost count.]

See, THIS is the way to identify lies that you have proven to be lies.

The fact that you give no hint whatsoever about what lies you are
alleging about Glenn, is a strong piece of evidence that you simply labeled
some things he wrote as "lies" and then became satisfied that you
had "documented" lies by him.

> It hasn't stopped him.

Are you trying to belatedly suggest that you DO know what is natural and
what is unnatural? And that, therefore, Glenn did lie about it after all?

If so, you have lost all sense of how to identify something as a lie.

>
> What Glenn can't deal with is that what I wrote is just as applicable to
> IDiots like himself as it has always been.

You are just behaving like a REAL idiot. You aren't even identifying
what you are referring to as "what I wrote."


Peter Nyikos

PS I've left your insanity-simulating ranting in below, just so people can be
mystified about why you aren't making any effort to refer
to anything that has transpired on this thread.

[RonO]

On 7/16/2020 9:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 8:24:59 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> A bunch of drivel, but nothing referenced, especially not this:

SNIP and run from reality. It is what you do best.

>
>
>> IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never
>> demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature
>
> Minnich did it for him, wrt one form of the bacterial flagellum,
> and even greatly improved on Behe, who only identified four
> indispensable components, complexes of single molecules. Minnich
> showed each and every one of the molecules was essential to swimming.

You should have read Behe's responses to his critics at the turn of the
century because I have given them to you repeatedly to demonstrate that
you are lying about this point. Behe had already admitted long before
Dover that the IC part of his stupidity was not the only requirement.
The flagellum is the only Behe type IC system in bacteria that Behe
claims to exist. All the other IC systems are not good enough for
Behe's purposes. Just taking away a part and having the system stop
doing its original function doesn't make a system IC. Minnich used
knock out mutation analysis to do what geneticists had been doing for 50
years before Minnich did it for the flagellum. Beadle and Tatum got the
Nobel prize for developing the technique. The researcher just has to
have a screen, and you just collect mutations that do not pass your
screen. If you collect enough knock out mutations for any complex system
you find all the parts where if the gene is knocked out that function stops.

Minnich only did that, but what is the current definition of IC? Behe
will know IC when he sees it, but he hasn't seen it. He wants a
specific order and arrangement of mutations leading to his IC function.
The IC part is now secondary. Demonstrate otherwise. The latest
definition has been put up during the IC fiasco on TO and you
participated. You know what reality currently is, and you still have to
lie about it.

If Minnich had demonstrated that the flagellum was Behe's type of IC why
doesn't the world know about it? Why did Minnich and Behe have to put
up the same lame test that neither of them had ever attempted if
Minnich's test was deemed sufficient by either of them?

Minnich quit working on the flagellum. I like to put up a paper where
Minnich looked at some of his irreducible parts (flagellar tail
proteins, knock some of them out and you do not get a functional
flagellum). What was found was that the flagellar tail had evolved over
millions of years by gene duplication, and that the duplication events
and later mutations fit into how the flagellum was constructed.

Minnich even has a phylogeny of how the tail proteins evolved by gene
duplication.

Minnich's test did not help Behe at all. It just meant that the
flagellum could be Behe's type of IC, but so could a lot of things.
Behe admitted that just taking away a part and having the system stop
working did not define his type of IC systems. His own example was the
lever and fulcrum as not being his type of IC system. Behe has never
demonstrated that his type of IC system exists in nature.

Behe's current IC:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Uw7rox2Jd8o/mxxyN3RZAQAJ

Post about what Minnich found out about the evolution of the flagellum:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ

If Minnich's test had meant anything the bait and switch would never
have started to go down. You know that when the ID perps had to put up
or shut up they ran and stared running the bait and switch. The switch
scam that they give the rubes instead is claimed to not have anything to
do with ID by the ID perps themselves. You keep lying about that, but
you know that, that is what went down and has kept going down since
2002. The ID perps updated their teach ID scam propaganda pamphlet in
2018 and they still are claiming to have a scientific theory of ID that
can be taught in the public schools in that propaganda pamphlet. Just
ask Glenn.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

You should stop lying about this junk and face reality.

>
> Read the Dover transcript, and learn something.

Look around you, and realize that Minnich did not do what you claim that
he did. All he did was demonstrate that if you take a way a part that
the flagellum stops working. He did not demonstrate that Behe's type of
IC exists in nature. He only did something that other scientists had
been doing for half a century, and nearly all of those systems are not
Behe's type of IC.

>
> You will also learn that Behe shot down Doolittle's claim that the
> part of the clotting system that Behe identified as IC in humans was not
> IC in in mice.

You will also learn that Behe has never demonstrated that the blood
clotting system is his type of IC. Demonstrate otherwise. Why does the
bait and switch keep going down? If the ID perps really had some ID
science why don't they support teaching it in the public schools. All
the IDiot rubes get is the switch scam. None of them ever got the blood
clotting system as something that supports intelligent design because
Behe hasn't gotten that far with the junk, and refuses to go any
further. There is no evidence that Behe has done anything to test and
verify his notion. Put up any verification that you think that Behe as
done, and then tell us why the other ID perps do not think that is good
enough to stop them from running the bait and switch scam.

>
> And your irrational argument for why you made that stupid claim
> about Behe just shows what an abysmal reasoner you are:
>
>> because once he does that he would know something about what his
>> designer did, and something about how the designer did it, and the
>> majority of IDiot rubes are YEC and do not want to know that their
>> designer diddle farted around with the flagellum over a billion years
>> ago, and assembled it from existing parts in some irreducibly complex
>> manner.

Look at Glenn. He has just been caught lying about this junk, and for
whatever reason he had to repeat the lie even though he knew that he had
just run from doing it. Not so unlike what you do. Maybe you can
understand how stupid it is when you see Glenn do it.

Glenn lying about what I claim about Behe:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/WRzBOU2M-5w/-_OSMVUIAwAJ

Glenn lying about it again:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/EHh2ytSHRpk/y3lqbxTXBgAJ

What you should get from this is that Glenn has to lie about the
stupidest things. Glenn should have known for decades that Behe is a
theistic evolutionist. Behe has admitted that biological evolution is a
fact of nature, and that humans have an ape like ancestor. The fact
that Glenn has had to remain willfully ignorant of something like that
is the same reason why Glenn does not want Behe to succeed in
determining if the flagellum is Behe's type of IC. Success would mean
that Behe would have figured out what his designer did to evolve the
flagellum over a billion years ago. Behe would know what the parts were
like before, and what changes the designer would have had to make in
order for the system to be Behe's type of IC. Just look at Behe's
latest definition. Behe would have to know what mutations were needed
and in what context they were added in order for him to determine that
the flagellum was his type of IC system.

This is why you have had to lie about my claims about the Top Six.
Glenn is running from them for the same reason that he has kept himself
willfully ignorant of Behe's beliefs for over 2 decades. Glenn does not
want to understand what the Top Six are in relation to each other. He
only wants to use them for denial purposes to lie to himself just long
enough to get to the next one. No IDiot want to understand the Top Six
as the Top Six. It is why MarkE did not want to learn anything from his
OoL argument. He only wanted to use #3 of the Top Six as temporary
denial. Nothing was supposed to be learned or incorporated into his
alternative. That is how the scientific creationists used the Top Six,
and how the IDiots use the Top Six. Listing the six of them together
was the worst mistake the ID perps could have ever made. That is why it
took them over two decades to do it. They had these same Top Six when
the ID scam unit was created at the Discovery Institute, and they have
never attempted to produce the best scientific alternative based on
them. They do not want to succeed in doing any science. They know that
they would lose the support of the majority of IDiots if they made any
scientific progress.

>
> Behe cares about science, more than you do; and so he risked alienating
> the YEC rubes by arguing more effectively for common descent in his second
> and third books than I've ever seen you argue.

My take at this time is that Behe likes the money and attention more
than the science at this time. What science has he done lately?
Writing scam books to fool the rubes isn't doing any science.

You could demonstrate otherwise, by demonstrating that Behe has done any
science in the books he sells to the rubes.

>
> You on the other hand don't dare risk alienating
> your main supporters, the atheists Oxyaena and jillery, by arguing
> for the existence of a creator, despite having claimed to believe in it.

Why would I ever have had to do anything like that? Why keep lying
about that issue? Why bring other posters into it that have nothing to
do with it?

You are just a lying asshole. If you keep lying that will never change.

Learn something from this post. What you and Glenn do is dishonest and
stupid. May be you can see it in Glenn when you can't see it in yourself.

Really, just try to determine that Minnich did anything to support
Behe's type of IC that made any difference in the fact that IC is still
just an untestable hypothesis, that has never been tested and verified.
Behe has changed the definition as the old one failed to remain
unverifiable, but he has only done it to maintain it as untestable, and
wants to keep it that way. Really, by the turn of the century Behe's
critics had convinced him that just taking away a part and losing
function did not make his systems his type of IC, so he started adding
things to the definition. He even claimed that he wasn't adding things
just emphasizing "well matched" as part of the definition. The latest
definition is likely some way that Behe thinks about "well matched"
where the order and arrangement of mutations needed to make the
flagellum are important. The irreducible loss of function by losing a
part isn't even needed in the current definition. It could all happen
in a single protein and satisfy Behe.

From the link above:
QUOTE:
3. Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition — "An irreducibly complex
evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps
(that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree
of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the
pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)
END QUOTE:

I gave you the same response to critics reference years ago, so this
should not be new to you.

Why would the bait and switch have gone down, and keeps going down if
Minnich had verified IC in any meaningful way? No IDiot rubes ever get
any ID science to teach in the public schools, but what do the ID perps
claim in their propaganda pamphlet?

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

This has been removed from the Education Policy up on their web page,
but is still in the propaganda pamphlet education policy.

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

This was in the Education Policy up on their web page until they ran the
bait and switch on both Texas and Louisiana in 2013 when both states
were proposing to add ID to textbook supplements so that a teacher would
have something to teach if they wanted to teach it. They were not
requiring the teaching of ID (according to them) just providing
resources. The ID perps still ran the bait and switch, and then the ID
perps removed the claim that they had a scientific theory to teach from
their education policy. The old education policy is still in the
propaganda pamphlet on page 15. You should stop lying about this junk.
Being such a lying asshole for a decade should be long enough for any
lying asshole.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/17/2020 7:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 7:39:59 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/14/2020 7:27 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:19:58 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything is nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of IDiots
>>>>> are left in existence.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of something that is not part of nature?
>>>>
>>> Ron has ridden his likely horse so much that he is severely bow-legged, and can't tell what is natural and what is un-natural.
>>>
>>
>> Glenn has resorted to lying about what I write.
>
> You obviously aren't referring to what he wrote above. None of what you
> write addresses what he wrote just now.

I've linked to it in a post that I likely was writing as you posted this
junk. It is down the thread, and you have likely already seen it.

>
>
>> He can't do anything
>> else, but run, and he has run from lying about what I write twice
>> recently.
>
> None of the unidentified alleged lies is described below.
>
>
>
>> It doesn't seem to affect Glenn to be caught lying.
>
> On the vanishingly small chance that you actually caught
>
> Welcome to the real world, Ron O. It never affected Burkhard to be caught
> lying about how no one demanded that I read the article that Carlip
> supposedly summarized in reply to Ron Dean.

Why do this in post to me? If you have an issue with other posters post
it to them. You are just a sick and degenerate asshole.

>
> It never affected Burkhard to have his lie documented for him, and so
> he replied to the documentation, leaving it in, and never acknowledging
> its existence. He went on adhering to:
>
> The Unwritten Law in T.O. for Those in Mutual See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil Relationship with At Least Eight People:
>
> If you don't admit to lying, you cannot be successfully charged with lying.
>
>
> Are you in Burkhard's hallowed company, Ron O? or are you still in Burkhard's killfile
> where he put you seven or eight years ago? [I've lost count.]
>
> See, THIS is the way to identify lies that you have proven to be lies.
>
> The fact that you give no hint whatsoever about what lies you are
> alleging about Glenn, is a strong piece of evidence that you simply labeled
> some things he wrote as "lies" and then became satisfied that you
> had "documented" lies by him.
>
>
>
>> It hasn't stopped him.
>
> Are you trying to belatedly suggest that you DO know what is natural and
> what is unnatural? And that, therefore, Glenn did lie about it after all?
>
> If so, you have lost all sense of how to identify something as a lie.
>
>
>>
>> What Glenn can't deal with is that what I wrote is just as applicable to
>> IDiots like himself as it has always been.
>
> You are just behaving like a REAL idiot. You aren't even identifying
> what you are referring to as "what I wrote."
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I've left your insanity-simulating ranting in below, just so people can be
> mystified about why you aren't making any effort to refer
> to anything that has transpired on this thread.

PSS you are just a lying asshole.

I must have been writing the post to your other nonsense in this thread
when you were posting this post of yours. In it I link to Glenn's
recent lies. Here is the link so that you can't lie about not getting
what you claim is not identified.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1hGfELwUerc/EmB7Jn4pAAAJ

Juat like you it doesn't seem to affect Glenn to be caught lying. That
is just a fact. Like you he just runs and does it again.

You have likely already run from this post, so you already know how sad
you are and how misinformed you are about what is currently going on.

Here is the link that you have been running from about the Top Six
issue. How many times have you run from this link, so why do you think
that you can still be an asshole about it?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

Why keep lying about this issue when you keep running from this link. I
have given it to you multiple times and all you do is run. Why have you
never addressed this link, but you can still lie to posters like
Harshman about the issue? You and Glenn both have an issue with telling
the truth. Lying isn't going to change reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Lying is sure changing your reality.

[jillery]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>The Unwritten Law in T.O. for Those in Mutual See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil Relationship with At Least Eight People:
>
> If you don't admit to lying, you cannot be successfully charged with lying.

One problem here is, it's almost certain those "At Least Eight People"
use a different definition of "lie" than you do.

Another problem here is, you almost never actually show anybody,
nevermind those "At Least Eight People", to have lied even by your own
definition[1].

[1] The persona named peter's personal definition of "lie":
***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************

[RonO]

Your lies have never changed anything, so you are lying again. Why
don't you put Nyikos out of his misery and tell him why you are running
from the Top Six?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I'm not aware that Peter is in misery. You should treat him to some beef.

[RonO]

Nyikos should not have to be a lying asshole over this issue. You can
put him out of his misery by just telling him what the issue actually
is. You could likely stop him from being an even bigger asshole by just
telling him that you have been running from the Top Six for over 2 and a
half years. You likely don't even have to tell him why, just tell him
what you are doing.

The ID perp Top Six in their own words from the same creationist news
site that you get your second rate junk from.

1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

Running from them again should give Nyikos the answer that he needs.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Right now I'm eating crackers for breakfast. But I doubt Peter is interested.

[jillery]

Since you mention Minnich above, perhaps you know the answer to a
question which has been bothering me for some time.

In Minnich's Kitzmiller trial testimony, he talks about his
experiments on bacterial flagella that he claimed show they are IC:

https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1103_day20_pm.pdf
*****************************
page 107
11 Q. Where you took away a portion of the
12 flagella?
13 A. We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein
14 or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to
15 confirm that that's the only part that we've
16 affected, you know, is that we can identify
17 this mutation, clone the gene from the wild
18 type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic
19 complementation. So this is, these cells up
20 here are derived from this mutant where we have
21 complemented with a good copy of the gene.
22 One mutation, one part knock out, it can't
23 swim. Put that single gene back in we restore
24 motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock
25 out one part, put a good copy of the gene back
108
1 in, and they can swim. By definition the system
2 is irreducibly complex. We've done that with
3 all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get
4 the same effect.
******************************

I have looked high and low for something which says when Minnich did
these experiments, but I can find none. Obviously, he did them before
2005, but that's the best I got.

Do you have any reference which documents that, perhaps even a
scientific paper he wrote about these experiments?

Thanks in advance.

[RonO]

On 7/19/2020 10:44 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:56:33 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

SNIP:

I haven't found where Minnich published this initial work, but the claim
is that he got a grant to perform knock out mutation research on the
flagellum. Like the tail proteins that I cite above he did identify
flagellar proteins in some way so that he could further study them. So
I have no reason to doubt that Minnich did get a grant to look at
flagellar proteins.

Beadle and Tatum got the Nobel prize for doing this type of research in
the 1930's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene%E2%80%93one_enzyme_hypothesis

If you have a complex system that has a lot of interacting genes, you
can do knock out mutation analysis to identify mutations that knock out
a specific gene function and the system stops working. This was part of
Behe's IC definition, but a part that he seems to have abandoned for his
order and arrangement of mutations that could occur in a single protein.

All Minnich did was mutate the bacteria using transposable elements.
When the transposable element jumped into a flagellar gene it would
knock the gene out and sometimes the flagellum would stop working. The
transposon acted like a tag and Minnich could pull out the gene sequence
to determine what it is. That is how he got the flagellar tail protein
genes. Minnich likely identified several genes that if you knock them
out you lose flagellar function. He has published on the flagellar tail
proteins, but he seems to have dropped most of his research into the
structure of the flagellum.

So Minnich verfied that if you take away a part, the flagellum stops
working. The problem is that this does not mean that the flagellum is
Behe's type of IC. Other researchers had been doing this for other
bacterial systems for 50 years before Minnich did it in the 1990's.
None of those other IC systems are Behe's type of IC systems. In his
response to his critics Behe realized that he had a problem with the
irreducible part of ICness when he responded to his critics. That is
why he had to put in the qualifiers, and why the new definition is what
it is. Just taking away a part and losing function does not make a
system Behe's type of IC. Nearly all such systems that have been
identified the way Minnich's research identified knock out mutations are
not Behe's type of IC. Behe's own example of an IC system that was not
his type of IC system was the lever and fulcrum. If you take away any
part, the system stops doing its original function, but it is not Behe
type of IC. Behe has never been able to demonstrate that any IC system

is his type of IC.

This is why both Minnich and Behe had to come up with the same bogus
test for IC during the Dover fiasco, and admit that they had never
attempted it. Behe's IC was never verified to have existed, and they
hadn't done any experiments to verify the existence of Behe's type of IC.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ

This is a post about what Minnich found out about the tail proteins. No
tail and you lose function. The tail is an IC part of the flagellum.
Minnich found that the tail proteins had evolved by gene duplication
over a very long period of time. He even has a phylogeny of their
evolutionary relationships. The sad thing is that he made the graduate
student write the paper, but exclude mentioning the relevance to general
science and biological evolution. Just imagine what those editing
sessions were like. It was likely a struggle for the student to get his
statement in that the order in which the gene duplications occurred
corresponds to how the flagellum is made by the bacteria. The proteins
at the tip of the tail evolved most recently and the initial tail
protein attaches the tail to the rest of the flagellum. The flagellar
tail is constructed by the flagellar base. The base of the flagellum
transports the tail proteins out of the bacteria and they assemble as
the tail grows in length, so new proteins are added at the tip to grow
the flagellar tail. Initially the flagellum had one tail protein, but
other tail proteins evolved by gene duplication, and the order of their
evolution corresponds to when they are added to the tail. So the
evolution of the tail of the flagellum fits in with what we know about
how the flagellum is assembled by the bacteria. The tail does not
support Behe's type of IC.

Minnich published this paper years before Dover, so he knew that he had
never verified the existence of Behe's type of IC.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Ok, since you didn't find any citable references to date Minnich's
claimed knock-out experiments, I feel better that I didn't either.

The reason I mention it here is, it's odd Minnich would assert in 2005
that his experiments proved the bacterial flagellum was IC *by
definition*. And that Casey Luskin would reassert in 2015 Minnich's
claim here:

<https://www.discovery.org/a/24481/>

when Behe changed his definition of IC in 2002. It's as if Behe
didn't talk to these guys, which would itself be odd.

WRT to Minnich and Behe's "bogus test" for IC, I believe you refer to
their suggestion to disprove *ID*, not IC, which was to place a
non-flagellar bacterial population in a properly stressful environment
and wait for it to evolve a flagellum.

This is a variation of a Creationist PRATT. Even if one could wait
the likely millions of years to re-evolve a flagellum, that would not
disprove design even in that case, nevermind all the other untested
cases, as cdesign proponentists could still rightfully say a
purposeful Designer doesn't have to work on our timetable.

Even more ironic, as Mr. Harvey mentioned, that bogus test is really a
proof of evolution, and not a disproof of ID.

I agree it's very telling that neither Behe nor Minnich nor anybody to
my knowledge has even tried to run their bogus test.

[RonO]

The proposed test was testing IC, and it's usefulness to the ID scam.
Behe contended that his type of IC systems could not evolve by natural
means. If it could evolve by natural means his contention would be
falsified and the flagellum could not be used to support IDiocy.

Beats me how long Behe was willing to wait. The bacterial flagellum has
only evolved twice (once in eubacteria and once in Archaea), and life
had existed for around a billion and a half years before it evolved.

>
> This is a variation of a Creationist PRATT. Even if one could wait
> the likely millions of years to re-evolve a flagellum, that would not
> disprove design even in that case, nevermind all the other untested
> cases, as cdesign proponentists could still rightfully say a
> purposeful Designer doesn't have to work on our timetable.

The only support IC gives to IDiots is if Behe type of IC systems cannot
evolve by natural means. That is what Behe and Minnich were testing.
If the flagellum could evolve in the lab the usefulness for supporting
ID would be falsified. As you point out it was just not any type of
test that could be done, and Behe and Minnich both admitted that they
had not attempted any such testing.

>
> Even more ironic, as Mr. Harvey mentioned, that bogus test is really a
> proof of evolution, and not a disproof of ID.

It was only a falsification test for Behe's type of IC. Falsification
tests are used in science to discard an hypothesis. If anyone could
evolve a flagellum in the lab Behe's type of IC would be out the window
for the flagellum and he would have to move on to his next IC system.

>
> I agree it's very telling that neither Behe nor Minnich nor anybody to
> my knowledge has even tried to run their bogus test.
>

They have never talked about any progress or any results, so it is a
good bet that no IDiot has ever attempted any verification testing.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Is the test Minnich suggested, about waiting for a bacterial
population to evolve a flagellum in the lab, what you mean is the
"bogus test"? Or is Minnich's "knockout genes" experiments what you
mean? If neither, will you say what test you do mean?

[RonO]

The bogus test was both Behe and MInnich's claim that IC was testable or
at least falsifiable. It was the evolving the flagellum in the lab
bogus test. Minnich's knock out gene experiment did demonstrate that
the flagellum was irreducible, but it could not demonstrate that it was
Behe's type of irreducible because all the other irreducible bacterial
systems that have been identified with the same knock out mutation
analysis are not Behe's type of IC. The flagellum is Behe's only such
IC system in bacteria, and researchers had been using the knock out gene
protocol for 50 years before Minnich used it. None of the bacterial IC
systems identified in such a way have been acknowledged as Behe's type
of IC except for the flagellum, so Minnich didn't come close to
verifying that Behe's type of IC system exists. That is why Behe had to
modify his definition of IC before the Dover fiasco.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

If Minnich's knock out gene experiments demonstrated that the
flagellum was irreducible, that would be according to Behe's original
definition of IC from DBB, and not according to his revised definition
from 2002.

Behe's IC definition from DBB:
***************************
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning.
***************************

Behe's IC definition from 2002:
***************************

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

****************************

Also, you affirm above what I thought you meant by "bogus test", the
one where scientists are supposed to evolve a flagellum in a lab. Both
Behe and Minnich described that as a test in principle to show *ID*
was falsifiable, and not a test for IC.

Here's Minnich's testimony:
<https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1103_day20_pm.pdf>

******************************
page 118
23 Q. Dr. Minnich, another complaint that's often
24 brought up, and plaintiffs' experts brought it
25 up in this case, is that intelligent design is

page 119
1 not testable. It's not falsifiable. Would you
2 agree with that claim?
3 A. No, I don't. I have a quote from Mike
4 Behe. "In fact, intelligent design is open to
5 direct experimental rebuttal. To falsify such
6 a claim a scientist could go into the
7 laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking
8 a flagellum under some selective pressure,
9 for motility say, grow it for ten thousand
10 generations and see if a flagellum or any
11 equally complex system was produced. If that
12 happened my claims would be neatly disproven."
*********************************

As I described above, even if this test was successful, it would not
disprove Behe's claims about ID.

and the next day:
https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1104_day21_am.pdf
*************************
page 80
1 Q. Now you claim that intelligent design can be
2 tested, correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Matt, please bring up slide 40. And that's your
5 claim right there that you put up during your direct
6 testimony to state that intelligent design can be
7 tested, right?
8 A. Right. I think it's falsifiable.
9 Q. And neither you nor Dr. Behe have run that test,
10 have you?
11 A. We talked about that yesterday. And I even, I
12 think, gave a -- an experiment that would be doable.
13 And in thinking about it last night, I might try it to
14 see if I can get a type III system to change into a
15 flagellum.
***************************

[RonO]

This is what I have consistently claimed and I have put up Behe's
responses to his critics at the turn of the century for years on TO.
Going into Dover by 2005 Minnich understood that what he had done was
essentially meaningless.

>
> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
> ***************************
> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
> functioning.
> ***************************

In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
"well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
multple parts.

>
> Behe's IC definition from 2002:
> ***************************
> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
> or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
> necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
> complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
> ****************************

This can occur in a single protein, and Behe has even admitted this when
he crowed about Thornton's research on the estrogen receptor. For
whatever reason Behe claimed that what Thornton found was the edge of
evolution, and his IC criteria had not been met. I don't know why he
would point out that someone had demonstrated how the estrogen receptor
had evolved, because that research only supported biological evolution,
and not intelligent design. Thornton found that two unselected steps
were involved in the evolution of the estrogen receptor, but Behe was
claiming that 3 were impossible enough to warrent his IC claims. The
bottom line was that Thornton had only found out what had actually
happened, not what Behe needed to find in order to support his notion of IC.

The test was to falsify Behe's claim that the flagellum could not evolve
under natural conditions. Having it evolve again would disprove Behe's
claims about the IC nature of the flagellum, and would exclude the
possibility that the flagellum was intelligently designed.

This would not falsify IC nor ID. Behe could just claim that he had
made a mistake and move on to his next IC system, and IDiocy does not
depend on the flagellum being Behe's type of IC. So Minnich was lying
in multiple ways. A lot of people may not like the word lying in this
case, but Minnich had understood for years that the game was over for
IDiocy and IC before he testified. He had been in on the original
decision to start running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002,
and the bait and switch had been going on for over 3 years by the time
he testified. His testimony was only supposed to obfuscate the issue
enough to fool the court. He knew that Behe's test would not falsify
intelligent design. The test would only mean that Behe was wrong about
the flagellum being his type of IC. It would not mean that the adaptive
immune system and the blood clotting system were also not Behe's type of
IC. Behe's ICidocy would have just gone on, and the ID perps would have
just shrugged and started lying about something else.

>
> As I described above, even if this test was successful, it would not
> disprove Behe's claims about ID.

Minnich knew this before he testified.

>
> and the next day:
> https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1104_day21_am.pdf
> *************************
> page 80
> 1 Q. Now you claim that intelligent design can be
> 2 tested, correct?
> 3 A. Correct.
> 4 Q. Matt, please bring up slide 40. And that's your
> 5 claim right there that you put up during your direct
> 6 testimony to state that intelligent design can be
> 7 tested, right?
> 8 A. Right. I think it's falsifiable.
> 9 Q. And neither you nor Dr. Behe have run that test,
> 10 have you?
> 11 A. We talked about that yesterday. And I even, I
> 12 think, gave a -- an experiment that would be doable.
> 13 And in thinking about it last night, I might try it to
> 14 see if I can get a type III system to change into a
> 15 flagellum.
> ***************************
>

No evidence that Minnich tried. He seems to have stopped researching
the structure of the flagellum back in the 1990's. His own research had
told him that the flagellar tail had evolved by gene duplication over a
long period of time.

I discuss this research here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uXsEk-GKBG8/aaSC-lY3AQAJ

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

This is what I have consistently claimed and I have put up Behe's
responses to his critics at the turn of the century for years on TO.
Going into Dover by 2005 Minnich understood that what he had done was
essentially meaningless.

>

> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
> ***************************
> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
> functioning.
> ***************************

In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
"well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
multple parts.

>

> Behe's IC definition from 2002:
> ***************************
> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
> or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
> necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
> complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
> ****************************

This can occur in a single protein, and Behe has even admitted this when
he crowed about Thornton's research on the estrogen receptor. For
whatever reason Behe claimed that what Thornton found was the edge of
evolution, and his IC criteria had not been met. I don't know why he
would point out that someone had demonstrated how the estrogen receptor
had evolved, because that research only supported biological evolution,
and not intelligent design. Thornton found that two unselected steps
were involved in the evolution of the estrogen receptor, but Behe was
claiming that 3 were impossible enough to warrent his IC claims. The
bottom line was that Thornton had only found out what had actually
happened, not what Behe needed to find in order to support his notion of IC.

>

The test was to falsify Behe's claim that the flagellum could not evolve
under natural conditions. Having it evolve again would disprove Behe's
claims about the IC nature of the flagellum, and would exclude the
possibility that the flagellum was intelligently designed.

This would not falsify IC nor ID. Behe could just claim that he had
made a mistake and move on to his next IC system, and IDiocy does not
depend on the flagellum being Behe's type of IC. So Minnich was lying
in multiple ways. A lot of people may not like the word lying in this
case, but Minnich had understood for years that the game was over for
IDiocy and IC before he testified. He had been in on the original
decision to start running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002,
and the bait and switch had been going on for over 3 years by the time
he testified. His testimony was only supposed to obfuscate the issue
enough to fool the court. He knew that Behe's test would not falsify
intelligent design. The test would only mean that Behe was wrong about
the flagellum being his type of IC. It would not mean that the adaptive
immune system and the blood clotting system were also not Behe's type of
IC. Behe's ICidocy would have just gone on, and the ID perps would have
just shrugged and started lying about something else.

>

> As I described above, even if this test was successful, it would not
> disprove Behe's claims about ID.

Minnich knew this before he testified.

>

> and the next day:
> https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1104_day21_am.pdf
> *************************
> page 80
> 1 Q. Now you claim that intelligent design can be
> 2 tested, correct?
> 3 A. Correct.
> 4 Q. Matt, please bring up slide 40. And that's your
> 5 claim right there that you put up during your direct
> 6 testimony to state that intelligent design can be
> 7 tested, right?
> 8 A. Right. I think it's falsifiable.
> 9 Q. And neither you nor Dr. Behe have run that test,
> 10 have you?
> 11 A. We talked about that yesterday. And I even, I
> 12 think, gave a -- an experiment that would be doable.
> 13 And in thinking about it last night, I might try it to
> 14 see if I can get a type III system to change into a
> 15 flagellum.
> ***************************
>

[jillery]

By "what he had done", I assume you mean that he had demonstrated the
flagellum was irreducible, as contrasted to Irreducibly Complex, a
distinction you clarify below.

However, as my Discotut cite shows, they continued to cite Minnich's
testimony as recently as 2015. My impression is, if either Minnich or
Behe agreed with you, they would have objected to Discotut and
demanded a retraction.

>> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
>> ***************************
>> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
>> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
>> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
>> functioning.
>> ***************************
>
>In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
>defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
>irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
>"well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
>mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
>multple parts.

Since Behe is defining Irreducible Complexity, it's confusing to refer
to the "irreducible" part. It would make more sense to label it the
"removal" part.

Either way, emphasizing the "well-matched" part hurts Behe's
definition. Not only is "well-matched" more ambiguous, but it
presumes the parts must be well-matched at the time the IC system is
first created. This makes no sense, as Behe knows natural selection
improves function of parts over time.

>> Behe's IC definition from 2002:
>> ***************************
>> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
>> or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
>> necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
>> complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
>> ****************************
>
>This can occur in a single protein, and Behe has even admitted this when
>he crowed about Thornton's research on the estrogen receptor. For
>whatever reason Behe claimed that what Thornton found was the edge of
>evolution, and his IC criteria had not been met. I don't know why he
>would point out that someone had demonstrated how the estrogen receptor
>had evolved, because that research only supported biological evolution,
>and not intelligent design. Thornton found that two unselected steps
>were involved in the evolution of the estrogen receptor, but Behe was
>claiming that 3 were impossible enough to warrent his IC claims. The
>bottom line was that Thornton had only found out what had actually
>happened, not what Behe needed to find in order to support his notion of IC.

Since you mention it, the theme of EoE is to show the limits of
natural selection. Since Behe presumes IC systems can't evolve, it's
no surprise that Behe would say something that evolved naturally isn't
IC.

But this is getting away from my concern. IIUC you have claimed there
are multiple and conflicting definitions being used. What I don't
understand is which definition you mean when you say "Behe's IC".
Again IIUC you have said Behe's definition from DBB is *not* what you
mean. But you don't explain why Discotut et al even to this day
continue to refer to it.

Will you identify the specific definition of IC you mean when you say
"Behe's IC"?

You are correct, that to disprove the flagellum isn't IC only
disproves that. It doesn't disprove IC isn't evidence of ID, and it
doesn't disprove ID in any way. Even Behe and Minnich are smart
enough to know that, so I don't understand how both of them could have
made that same mistake. Nevertheless, what you say above contradicts
their explicit testimony.

>> As I described above, even if this test was successful, it would not
>> disprove Behe's claims about ID.
>
>Minnich knew this before he testified.

I suppose that's possible, but I can fathom no reason why he would lie
about it. The more likely explanation is it's another case of
cognitive dissonance.

You are correct, that Minnich never tried, either before the Dover
trial or after. Either way, his testimony stands, that he proposed
the "bogus test" as a means in principal to falsify ID, not IC. The
record is very clear on that point.

[RonO]

The ID perps are not known for their honesty and integrity. If Minnich
had demonstrated that Behe's IC type systems existed the ID perps would
never have started running the bait and switch on creationist rubes
instead of putting forward the great science supporting ID that they
obviously never had. The bait and switch started years after Minnich
supposedly did his wonderful research.

The other ID perps sometimes refer to Behe as a super hero, but Behe has
consistently claimed that he did not support teaching the ID junk in the
public schools. Behe has consistently admitted that biological
evolution is a fact of nature, and about the only thing the other ID
perps use Behe for is to pull him out of the closet every once in a
while to play the piano like some type of idiot savant sibling.

For all of his troubles and embarassment that he suffered for the ID
scam Minnich never made it to being a senior fellow at the ID scam unit.
Minnich has been there since the beginning, and even Nelson (The YEC
IDiot who always claimed that the ID perps hadn't developed the ID
science that they needed and that IDiots needed to work on that) made
senior fellow a couple years ago. That tells you what the other ID
perps really think of Minnich.

>
>
>>> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
>>> ***************************
>>> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
>>> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
>>> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
>>> functioning.
>>> ***************************
>>
>> In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
>> defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
>> irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
>> "well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
>> mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
>> multple parts.
>
>
> Since Behe is defining Irreducible Complexity, it's confusing to refer
> to the "irreducible" part. It would make more sense to label it the
> "removal" part.

It doesn't matter what Behe calls it, he knows that he hasn't
demonstrated that it exists in nature.

>
> Either way, emphasizing the "well-matched" part hurts Behe's
> definition. Not only is "well-matched" more ambiguous, but it
> presumes the parts must be well-matched at the time the IC system is
> first created. This makes no sense, as Behe knows natural selection
> improves function of parts over time.

It was Behe's claim that he wasn't changing his definition only
emphasizing the "well-matched" part.

The emphasis has turned into not requiring the irreducible part of the
definition any longer.

>
>
>>> Behe's IC definition from 2002:
>>> ***************************
>>> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
>>> or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
>>> necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
>>> complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
>>> ****************************
>>
>> This can occur in a single protein, and Behe has even admitted this when
>> he crowed about Thornton's research on the estrogen receptor. For
>> whatever reason Behe claimed that what Thornton found was the edge of
>> evolution, and his IC criteria had not been met. I don't know why he
>> would point out that someone had demonstrated how the estrogen receptor
>> had evolved, because that research only supported biological evolution,
>> and not intelligent design. Thornton found that two unselected steps
>> were involved in the evolution of the estrogen receptor, but Behe was
>> claiming that 3 were impossible enough to warrent his IC claims. The
>> bottom line was that Thornton had only found out what had actually
>> happened, not what Behe needed to find in order to support his notion of IC.
>
>
> Since you mention it, the theme of EoE is to show the limits of
> natural selection. Since Behe presumes IC systems can't evolve, it's
> no surprise that Behe would say something that evolved naturally isn't
> IC.

It isn't a limitation of natural selection, but the limited availability
of variation for natural selection to act on. All the stupid demand
from Behe, that someone put up 3 unselected steps leading to function,
means is that no one has ever found what Behe needs in order to claim
that the system is his type of IC. All anyone can do is figure out what
happened, not what is only expected to happen very rarely.

>
> But this is getting away from my concern. IIUC you have claimed there
> are multiple and conflicting definitions being used. What I don't
> understand is which definition you mean when you say "Behe's IC".
> Again IIUC you have said Behe's definition from DBB is *not* what you
> mean. But you don't explain why Discotut et al even to this day
> continue to refer to it.
>
> Will you identify the specific definition of IC you mean when you say
> "Behe's IC"?

Behe never demonstrated that any system fit any of his definitions of
being his type of IC. You can just take the current definition, it is
as bad as all the others. He has only had to change his definition
because he was convinced by his critics that irreducibly complex systems
could evolve by natural means, so his IC had to be more than just
something where you could take away a part and it would stop working.
Behe never demonstrated that any of his systems were his type of IC by
any of his definitions. If he had, the definition would not have had to
change.

It wasn't a mistake it was willful obfuscation and dishonesty.

>
>
>>> As I described above, even if this test was successful, it would not
>>> disprove Behe's claims about ID.
>>
>> Minnich knew this before he testified.
>
>
> I suppose that's possible, but I can fathom no reason why he would lie
> about it. The more likely explanation is it's another case of
> cognitive dissonance.

Minnich stayed an ID perp after being involved in the first bait and
switch scam on the Ohio rubes in 2002. A month after Ohio Phillip
Johnson retired from the ID scam and voiced his opinion that he did not
approve of the people that would not teach ID in the public schools.
Phillip Johnson came back to support the ID scam in Dover only to see
the ID perps run away or debase themselves in court. He probably came
back to hold the other ID perp's feet to the fire, but half of them ran
anyway.

Minnich is the type that still supports the political scam even though
he knows that it is just a scam that creationists are running on themselves.

ID perps lie about a lot of things. People should start trying to
collect things that they have told the truth about instead.

Ron Okimoto

[Gary Hurd]

Regarding the OP title, "What type of IDiots are left in existence?"

There seem to me to be just 2 sort; religious fanatics, and the few paid shills from the Discovery Institute, or as I call them Disco'tutes.

[Gary Hurd]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

"IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."

Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.

There are several discussions on his classic "flagellum" claim. One I still like is, "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by
Kenneth R. Miller

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:40:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:

An excellent cite, indeed. Miller has always been my goto guy ever
since I first heard him on that Firing Line debate.

For a more satirical spin, try this:

<http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html>

[jillery]

If Discotut really feels that way about Minnich, it makes no sense
that they would continue to cite him, his work, and his testimony.

As for Behe, if he agrees with you, then Discotut is doing to him what
they're doing to Minnich. I can't imagine them regarding their IC
poster child that way.

>>>> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
>>>> ***************************
>>>> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
>>>> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
>>>> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
>>>> functioning.
>>>> ***************************
>>>
>>> In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
>>> defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
>>> irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
>>> "well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
>>> mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
>>> multple parts.
>>
>>
>> Since Behe is defining Irreducible Complexity, it's confusing to refer
>> to the "irreducible" part. It would make more sense to label it the
>> "removal" part.
>
>It doesn't matter what Behe calls it, he knows that he hasn't
>demonstrated that it exists in nature.

I referred to what *you* called it, not Behe; the "irreducible" part
and the "well-matched" part, both still preserved in the quoted text
above.

>> Either way, emphasizing the "well-matched" part hurts Behe's
>> definition. Not only is "well-matched" more ambiguous, but it
>> presumes the parts must be well-matched at the time the IC system is
>> first created. This makes no sense, as Behe knows natural selection
>> improves function of parts over time.
>
>It was Behe's claim that he wasn't changing his definition only
>emphasizing the "well-matched" part.
>
>The emphasis has turned into not requiring the irreducible part of the
>definition any longer.

If you mean the "removal" part of his definition, you haven't
identified where Behe says it's no longer part of his definition.
Based on his 2002 definition below, he has removed *both* parts, the
"removal" part *and* the "well-matched" part.

>>>> Behe's IC definition from 2002:
>>>> ***************************
>>>> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one
>>>> or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
>>>> necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
>>>> complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
>>>> ****************************
>>>
>>> This can occur in a single protein, and Behe has even admitted this when
>>> he crowed about Thornton's research on the estrogen receptor. For
>>> whatever reason Behe claimed that what Thornton found was the edge of
>>> evolution, and his IC criteria had not been met. I don't know why he
>>> would point out that someone had demonstrated how the estrogen receptor
>>> had evolved, because that research only supported biological evolution,
>>> and not intelligent design. Thornton found that two unselected steps
>>> were involved in the evolution of the estrogen receptor, but Behe was
>>> claiming that 3 were impossible enough to warrent his IC claims. The
>>> bottom line was that Thornton had only found out what had actually
>>> happened, not what Behe needed to find in order to support his notion of IC.
>>
>>
>> Since you mention it, the theme of EoE is to show the limits of
>> natural selection. Since Behe presumes IC systems can't evolve, it's
>> no surprise that Behe would say something that evolved naturally isn't
>> IC.
>
>It isn't a limitation of natural selection, but the limited availability
>of variation for natural selection to act on.

Ok. As I have posted many times, random mutation is the grist of the
natural selection mill.

>All the stupid demand
>from Behe, that someone put up 3 unselected steps leading to function,
>means is that no one has ever found what Behe needs in order to claim
>that the system is his type of IC. All anyone can do is figure out what
>happened, not what is only expected to happen very rarely.

IIUC you say above that what you mean by "Behe's IC" is his 2002
definition. Thank you.

>> But this is getting away from my concern. IIUC you have claimed there
>> are multiple and conflicting definitions being used. What I don't
>> understand is which definition you mean when you say "Behe's IC".
>> Again IIUC you have said Behe's definition from DBB is *not* what you
>> mean. But you don't explain why Discotut et al even to this day
>> continue to refer to it.
>>
>> Will you identify the specific definition of IC you mean when you say
>> "Behe's IC"?
>
>Behe never demonstrated that any system fit any of his definitions of
>being his type of IC. You can just take the current definition, it is
>as bad as all the others. He has only had to change his definition
>because he was convinced by his critics that irreducibly complex systems
>could evolve by natural means, so his IC had to be more than just
>something where you could take away a part and it would stop working.
>Behe never demonstrated that any of his systems were his type of IC by
>any of his definitions. If he had, the definition would not have had to
>change.

Ok. I am just trying make clear what *you* mean by "Behe's IC".

Ok. To rephrase, I don't understand how both of them could have
testified to the same willful obfuscation and dishonesty.

The relevant point here is not the veracity of Minnich's and Behe's
testimony, but instead the testimony itself.

Thank you for your time.

[RonO]

Minnich has been with the Discovery Institute's ID scam outfit from the
beginning. He is likely the only such person that hasn't quit to not be
a senior fellow. Why would a scam artist like Wells be a senior fellow
for a couple decades when he never held an academic position above post
doc. Guillermo Gonzalez never got tenure, and Paul Nelson never had a
job and has been Mr. mom for over two and a half decades.

>
> As for Behe, if he agrees with you, then Discotut is doing to him what
> they're doing to Minnich. I can't imagine them regarding their IC
> poster child that way.

My take is that Behe is in it for the attention and money. He knows
that the other ID perps do not want him nor Denton around because you
just have to read the creationist news site when the Discovery Institute
bad mouths theistic evolution as bad theology, and both Denton and Behe
are theistic evolutionists. Behe is also the only guy with something
still in the Top Six even though it has degenerated into the usual god
of the gaps denial stupidity.

>
>
>>>>> Behe's IC definition from DBB:
>>>>> ***************************
>>>>> a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
>>>>> that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the
>>>>> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
>>>>> functioning.
>>>>> ***************************
>>>>
>>>> In his responses to his critics Behe claims that he isn't changing his
>>>> defintion, but only emphasizing "well-matched". It turned out that the
>>>> irreducible part of the definition never mattered, and the
>>>> "well-matched" part turned into his order and arrangement of specific
>>>> mutaitons junk that could occur in a single protein and you didn't need
>>>> multple parts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since Behe is defining Irreducible Complexity, it's confusing to refer
>>> to the "irreducible" part. It would make more sense to label it the
>>> "removal" part.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what Behe calls it, he knows that he hasn't
>> demonstrated that it exists in nature.
>
>
> I referred to what *you* called it, not Behe; the "irreducible" part
> and the "well-matched" part, both still preserved in the quoted text
> above.

Behe uses irreducible. He even still calls it IC with his new
definition even though the IC doesn't have to be irreducible in the
sense of taking away a part and losing function. My guess is that Behe
has some weird notion that the three unselected steps are irreducible in
some way when they are just something that happened.

>
>
>>> Either way, emphasizing the "well-matched" part hurts Behe's
>>> definition. Not only is "well-matched" more ambiguous, but it
>>> presumes the parts must be well-matched at the time the IC system is
>>> first created. This makes no sense, as Behe knows natural selection
>>> improves function of parts over time.
>>
>> It was Behe's claim that he wasn't changing his definition only
>> emphasizing the "well-matched" part.
>>
>> The emphasis has turned into not requiring the irreducible part of the
>> definition any longer.
>
>
> If you mean the "removal" part of his definition, you haven't
> identified where Behe says it's no longer part of his definition.
> Based on his 2002 definition below, he has removed *both* parts, the
> "removal" part *and* the "well-matched" part.

Read the new definition right below. Unselected steps are not taking
away a part and losing function. They are just unselected steps. Behe
acknowledges that 2 unselected steps should be pretty routine if a
little on the rare side. His own calculation indicated that two
unselected steps would be expected to occur in a population of a
hundred million individuals in a few generations. How many trillions of
bacteria were around when the flagellum was evolving a billion and a
half years ago? There are trillions of amphioxus cordates, so how many
early vertebrates were there when the ancestor of all vertebrates was
putting the finishing touches on the blood clotting system and the
adaptive immune system.

My guess is that Behe's IC definition is whatever he wants it to be at
the time.

They remained ID perps after the bait and switch started to go down.
IDiocy was never going to be a legitimate science after that unless some
miracle happened, and no such miracle happened before Dover.

Their testimony is what it is, and they can't take it back, but they can
waffle about what they meant like Behe trying to explain what he meant
by ID was a science like astrology. He claims that he meant the
astrology practiced in the dark ages when his church was still burning
heretics for the good of their souls. I still can't figure out why that
would be better than comparing ID to today's type of astrology.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/21/2020 1:44 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> Regarding the OP title, "What type of IDiots are left in existence?"
>
> There seem to me to be just 2 sort; religious fanatics, and the few paid shills from the Discovery Institute, or as I call them Disco'tutes.
>

They are the ignorant, the incompetent, and or dishonest. Those are the
only types left.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>
> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>
> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.

It is just semantics. The fact is that Behe has never demonstrated that
his type of IC exists in nature, so even though the systems that he
talks about do exist, he has never demonstrated that they are his type
of IC.

>
> There are several discussions on his classic "flagellum" claim. One I still like is, "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by
> Kenneth R. Miller
>
> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
>

my recollection is that Behe claims that the Type III secretory system
is a devolved flagellum that degenerated into the Type III structure.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

FWIW Minnich did experiments that show plague bacillus grow flagella
in some environments, and Type III secretory systems in other
environments. He claims this is evidence that flagella are devolved
Type III secretory systems.

However, there are lots of bacterial strains with Type III secretory
systems, and lots of different Type III secretory systems. To the
best of my knowledge, only plague bacillus has this peculiar ability.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>
> >> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
> >>
> >> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.

This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
evolved by purely undirected methods.

That is true as long as a directed panspermia (DP) origin [a purely natural yet
directed method] is not ruled out. ID comes directly into play in DP:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137

> >It is just semantics. The fact is that Behe has never demonstrated that
> >his type of IC exists in nature, so even though the systems that he
> >talks about do exist, he has never demonstrated that they are his type
> >of IC.

Ron O does not have the right to dictate to Behe what "his type of IC" is.

> >>
> >> There are several discussions on his classic "flagellum" claim. One I still like is, "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by
> >> Kenneth R. Miller
> >>
> >> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
> >>
> >
> >my recollection is that Behe claims that the Type III secretory system
> >is a devolved flagellum that degenerated into the Type III structure.
> >
> >Ron Okimoto
>
>
> FWIW Minnich did experiments that show plague bacillus grow flagella
> in some environments, and Type III secretory systems in other
> environments. He claims this is evidence that flagella are devolved
> Type III secretory systems.
>

If you can bear to provide documentation of this, for the sake of
talk.origins [1], I for one would I would be appreciative.

> However, there are lots of bacterial strains with Type III secretory
> systems, and lots of different Type III secretory systems.

OTOH there are not just lots of strains, but a goodly number of whole
phyla of eubacterial flagellae. And I'm not counting the flagellae of
archae, which are not homologous.

> To the
> best of my knowledge, only plague bacillus has this peculiar ability.

Over on the thread "How to tell science from pseudo-science," there
is a newcomer to talk.orgins [at least, Google Groups sees him as one]
who wrote, "I teach and publish in evolutionary biology, which is of great interest to me."

You and he seem to have hit it off pretty well, so you might consider
documenting what you've written here for him [1] if for no other reason.


[1] These comments are in the same spirit as the scene in "White Collar" where
Peter's criminal-turned-cooperative sidekick tries to get a bunch
of expert forgers to cook something up, and the response is negative
and abusive. But then this attitude turns to willing cooperation when he says,
"I'm not asking you to do it for me. I'm asking you to do it for Mozzie."


Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
This post has a good scientific component,
and is highly relevant for one of the topics for which talk.origins was set up.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>> >>
>> >> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
>
>This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
>evolved by purely undirected methods.

You assert a false equivalence. Cdesign proponentists claim IC
systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods, thus their presumed
need for purposeful intelligent intervention. The burden is on them
to show that IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods, at
least beyond a reasonable doubt.

And analogous claim would not be what you describe above, but instead
that it's impossible for a purposeful Intelligent Designer to create
those particular IC systems at those particular times we know they
existed.

Putting aside for argument's sake there is no evidence of such a
purposeful Intelligent Designer, there remains the question of why
said presumptive Designer designed those things at those times and not
other things at other times equally impossible to evolve.

That is the fundamental weakness of presuming as cause an undefined,
unknown, unnamed Designer; it can accommodate anything and so predicts
nothing. The problem isn't that a purposeful Designer is impossible,
but instead is that it's a poor explanation.

>That is true as long as a directed panspermia (DP) origin [a purely natural yet
>directed method] is not ruled out. ID comes directly into play in DP:

DP suffers from the same fundamental weaknesses as an undefined,
unknown, unnamed Designer.

> The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
> microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
> conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
> combine all the desirable properties within one single type
> of organism or to send many different organisms is not
> completely clear.
> --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
> Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137
>
>> >It is just semantics. The fact is that Behe has never demonstrated that
>> >his type of IC exists in nature, so even though the systems that he
>> >talks about do exist, he has never demonstrated that they are his type
>> >of IC.
>
>Ron O does not have the right to dictate to Behe what "his type of IC" is.

The above is more of your mindless obfuscating noise. "Behe's IC" is
just a convenient label to identify it from other types of IC. My
only problem with it is I remain uncertain which definition of IC RonO
means by "Behe's IC".

>> >> There are several discussions on his classic "flagellum" claim. One I still like is, "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by
>> >> Kenneth R. Miller
>> >>
>> >> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
>> >>
>> >
>> >my recollection is that Behe claims that the Type III secretory system
>> >is a devolved flagellum that degenerated into the Type III structure.
>> >
>> >Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>> FWIW Minnich did experiments that show plague bacillus grow flagella
>> in some environments, and Type III secretory systems in other
>> environments. He claims this is evidence that flagella are devolved
>> Type III secretory systems.
>>
>
>If you can bear to provide documentation of this, for the sake of
>talk.origins [1], I for one would I would be appreciative.

What do you mean by "this"? That Minnich did these experiments? Or
that he claims them as evidence flagella are devolved Type III
secretory systems?

>> However, there are lots of bacterial strains with Type III secretory
>> systems, and lots of different Type III secretory systems.
>
>OTOH there are not just lots of strains, but a goodly number of whole
>phyla of eubacterial flagellae. And I'm not counting the flagellae of
>archae, which are not homologous.

The information you describe supports my point and so is not an
"OTOH".

>> To the
>> best of my knowledge, only plague bacillus has this peculiar ability.
>
>Over on the thread "How to tell science from pseudo-science," there
>is a newcomer to talk.orgins [at least, Google Groups sees him as one]
>who wrote, "I teach and publish in evolutionary biology, which is of great interest to me."

If said newcomer expresses such an interest, I will oblige to the best
of my ability, because he asked. You aren't qualified to speak for
others.

>You and he seem to have hit it off pretty well, so you might consider
>documenting what you've written here for him [1] if for no other reason.
>
>
>[1] These comments are in the same spirit as the scene in "White Collar" where
>Peter's criminal-turned-cooperative sidekick tries to get a bunch
>of expert forgers to cook something up, and the response is negative
>and abusive. But then this attitude turns to willing cooperation when he says,
>"I'm not asking you to do it for me. I'm asking you to do it for Mozzie."
>
>
>Peter Nyikos
>NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
>This post has a good scientific component,
>and is highly relevant for one of the topics for which talk.origins was set up.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/22/20 5:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>>>>
>>>> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
>
> This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
> evolved by purely undirected methods.

That's why, rather than a knife, we use a razor. The Razor *does* cut
out unnecessary unobserved entities, such as supernatural and
extraterrestrial intelligences.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
> >> >>
> >> >> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
> >
> >This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
> >evolved by purely undirected methods.
>
>
> You assert a false equivalence.

You are counting your chickens before they are hatched.

> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,

People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
You once bragged that you posted the key passage from there before
I did, and I humored you then, but you seem to keep conveniently
forgetting about it.


Moreover, materialists who are ignorant of Directed Panspermia (DP)
have to maintain that ALL the IC things HAD to evolve without intelligent
intervention. And so do those whose only reaction to DP is that it
"only kicks the can down the road" and never stop to think about
there being a connection with Intelligent Design.

That also applies to abiogenesis, of course, but here they ALSO have
to take as an article of faith that some mindless Invisible Hand works
in prebiotic evolution like the one that worked in biological evolution,
based on natural selection.


So the knife does cut both ways, and your mechanical response
barely scratched the surface of the cuts.

> thus their presumed
> need for purposeful intelligent intervention.

I've written above about the presumed need of so many atheists (like yourself?)
for no intervening designer ANYWHERE, not just for IC systems. This is as bad
as what you attribute here to some camp followers of ID theory.

> The burden is on them
> to show that IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods, at
> least beyond a reasonable doubt.

This GIGO is what comes of you counting your chickens before they
are hatched.

Would you like to try your hand at counting those chickens again?

> And analogous claim would not be what you describe above, but instead
> that it's impossible for a purposeful Intelligent Designer to create
> those particular IC systems at those particular times we know they
> existed.

Until you can hatch those chickens, any open-minded reader can
see that you have a false INequivalence here. ANY intervention
in evolution, biological or prebiotic, by a purposeful Intelligent Designer
is forbidden by the mindset of the atheistic materialists I described.

And that *includes* all living things anywhere in the universe,
including the hypothesized directed panspermists, with their
understanding of science and technology about on a par with ours.


Remmainder deleted, to be replied to on a week where you make an intelligent
stab at hatching those chickens a second time. [This week, if you do it
soon enough.]

If you resort to talking on the level of "ejaculating" and "sphincters,"
the response to what I snipped below will be at a time that is convenient for me.

Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
This post has a good scientific component,
and is highly relevant for one of the topics for which talk.origins was set up.

PS I still have quite a lot up my sleeve, so you'll just be amusing
me if you come across as overconfident about your mechanical "false
equivalence" gambit.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> >> >> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
>> >
>> >This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
>> >evolved by purely undirected methods.
>>
>>
>> You assert a false equivalence.
>
>You are counting your chickens before they are hatched.

Liar[1].

>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,
>
>People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
>may well claim that, but Behe does not.

ONCE AGAIN, reconcile the above with Behe's arguments for, and use of,
IC.

>Those who claim
>an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
>You once bragged that you posted the key passage from there before
>I did, and I humored you then, but you seem to keep conveniently
>forgetting about it.

Liar[1].

>Moreover, materialists who are ignorant of Directed Panspermia (DP)
>have to maintain that ALL the IC things HAD to evolve without intelligent
>intervention.

The above is a willfully stupid statement. DP is irrelevant. OTOH
"materialists" are well aware of artificial selection, the hallmark of
real-life intelligent design applied to biological organisms,
practiced by known, defined, and named designers. In fact, Darwin
used artificial selection as an analogy to illustrate natural
selection.

>And so do those whose only reaction to DP is that it
>"only kicks the can down the road" and never stop to think about
>there being a connection with Intelligent Design.

In fact, DP only kicks the can down the road. But there are other
good reasons to ignore DP, as I posted previously.

>That also applies to abiogenesis, of course, but here they ALSO have
>to take as an article of faith that some mindless Invisible Hand works
>in prebiotic evolution like the one that worked in biological evolution,
>based on natural selection.

Liar[1].

>So the knife does cut both ways, and your mechanical response
>barely scratched the surface of the cuts.

Liar[1].

>> thus their presumed
>> need for purposeful intelligent intervention.
>
>I've written above about the presumed need of so many atheists (like yourself?)
>for no intervening designer ANYWHERE, not just for IC systems. This is as bad
>as what you attribute here to some camp followers of ID theory.

Liar[1].

>> The burden is on them
>> to show that IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods, at
>> least beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>This GIGO is what comes of you counting your chickens before they
>are hatched.

Liar[1].

>Would you like to try your hand at counting those chickens again?

Would you like to stop beating your wife?

>> And analogous claim would not be what you describe above, but instead
>> that it's impossible for a purposeful Intelligent Designer to create
>> those particular IC systems at those particular times we know they
>> existed.
>
>Until you can hatch those chickens, any open-minded reader can
>see that you have a false INequivalence here. ANY intervention
>in evolution, biological or prebiotic, by a purposeful Intelligent Designer
>is forbidden by the mindset of the atheistic materialists I described.

Liar[1].

>And that *includes* all living things anywhere in the universe,
>including the hypothesized directed panspermists, with their
>understanding of science and technology about on a par with ours.

Liar[1].


>Remmainder deleted,


That cuts both ways. Not sure how even you *still* don't understand
this.


[1] The persona named peter's personal definition of "lie":
***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 10:59:58 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/22/20 5:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
> >>>>
> >>>> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
> >
> > This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
> > evolved by purely undirected methods.
>
> That's why, rather than a knife, we use a razor. The Razor *does* cut
> out unnecessary unobserved entities, such as supernatural and
> extraterrestrial intelligences.

This sophomoric comment only shows how superficial your understanding
is of Ockham's Razor, of science, and of the actual playing
field of ID versus undirected: evolution AND abiogenesis AND the fine
tuning of the physical constants.

If jillery, whose understanding of science and knowledge of scientific
facts well exceeds yours (a microscopically low bar to clear, and
she's only cleared it by a few inches) makes a respectable stab
at counting her chickens the second time around, you may learn more. My
time is too valuable to waste on a near-nonentity like yourself.


Peter Nyikos
No four line virtual .sig this time, see my last sentence above.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/23/20 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> [snip to one point]

>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,
>
> People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
> may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
> an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.

For those who don't have the book, what Behe wrote on p. 40 was
"effectively can't."

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:44:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/23/20 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> [snip to one point]
>>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,
>>
>> People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
>> may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
>> an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
>
>For those who don't have the book, what Behe wrote on p. 40 was
>"effectively can't."

Correct. The persona named peter continues to spam his mindlessly
pedantic argument. IC's raison d'être is to show some biological
systems are too complex to have evolved by unguided natural processes
aka undirected methods. Behe explicitly asserts on page 40 of DBB
that only the simplest IC system can evolve without purposeful
intervention. None of the examples he gives as IC are simple.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:36:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 10:59:58 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 7/22/20 5:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> >>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
>> >
>> > This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
>> > evolved by purely undirected methods.
>>
>> That's why, rather than a knife, we use a razor. The Razor *does* cut
>> out unnecessary unobserved entities, such as supernatural and
>> extraterrestrial intelligences.
>
>This sophomoric comment only shows how superficial your understanding
>is of Ockham's Razor, of science, and of the actual playing
>field of ID versus undirected: evolution AND abiogenesis AND the fine
>tuning of the physical constants.

You provide utterly zero basis for your sophomoric comments above.

In fact, Ockham's razor is a metaphor for a problem-solving principle.
Isaak's witticism converted your false equivalence into a clever
metaphor of a metaphor. No wonder you sound jealous.

>If jillery, whose understanding of science and knowledge of scientific
>facts well exceeds yours (a microscopically low bar to clear, and
>she's only cleared it by a few inches) makes a respectable stab
>at counting her chickens the second time around, you may learn more. My
>time is too valuable to waste on a near-nonentity like yourself.

Since you mention it, it's almost certain Mark Isaak has forgotten
more about science than I have ever known. Your obfuscating noise is
just transparent and childish insults.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 1:04:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:36:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 10:59:58 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 7/22/20 5:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> >> >>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
> >> >
> >> > This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
> >> > evolved by purely undirected methods.
> >>
> >> That's why, rather than a knife, we use a razor. The Razor *does* cut
> >> out unnecessary unobserved entities, such as supernatural and
> >> extraterrestrial intelligences.
> >
> >This sophomoric comment only shows how superficial your understanding
> >is of Ockham's Razor, of science, and of the actual playing
> >field of ID versus undirected: evolution AND abiogenesis AND the fine
> >tuning of the physical constants.
>
>
> You provide utterly zero basis for your sophomoric comments above.

As of then, and they are far from sophomoric, as one person behind
the jillery persona [1] must know. But I'll have more to say after someone
behind the jillery persona does what I asked for when I wrote:

Remainder deleted, to be replied to on a week where you make

an intelligent stab at hatching those chickens a second time.
[This week, if you do it soon enough.]

The libelous attack [2] that was the immediate reply by someone behind
the jillery persona to the post in which wrote the above, does not qualify.

[1] HISTORICAL NOTE. There are some very significant examples of multiple
people using a common pseudonym. One of the most significant examples
was "Jane," a group of doctors doing very safe illegal abortions in the
1950's and 1960's. They were much safer than many legal abortions are nowadays,
partly because any botched abortion back then would have brought the full weight
of criminal law against them.

[2] That mockery of an argument was peppered with libelous uses of "Liar[1]."
Those footnotes direct the reader to a criterion for a certain kind
of behavior that I consider to come under the category of lying.
But for all uses ever made by "jillery" of "Liar[1]." to be truthful, the
criterion would have to read something like this:

I consider any statement made without justifying it beyond
a reasonable doubt on the spot, and done with the intent
of rebutting something the opponent wrote, to be lying.

If "jillery" can find even ONE use of that "Liar[1]." taunt that does
not require such a devoid-of-reality "definition" for it to
be truthful, I'd be very surprised.

> In fact, Ockham's razor is a metaphor for a problem-solving principle.
> Isaak's witticism

If that was a witticism, then everything posted by Mark Isaak this year
has been a witticism.

> converted your false equivalence into a clever
> metaphor of a metaphor.

Sorry, what you say here is just a doubling down on your original example of
counting your chickens before the eggs are hatched, rebutted at great length
in the post which was met only by libel and more "chicken counting."

> No wonder you sound jealous.

Now you are counting a chicken before the rotten egg is hatched.

>
>
> >If jillery, whose understanding of science and knowledge of scientific
> >facts well exceeds yours (a microscopically low bar to clear, and
> >she's only cleared it by a few inches) makes a respectable stab
> >at counting her chickens the second time around, you may learn more. My
> >time is too valuable to waste on a near-nonentity like yourself.
>
>
> Since you mention it, it's almost certain Mark Isaak has forgotten
> more about science than I have ever known.

Mainly computer science. He's a computer geek who keeps coming up
with short ways of coding programs that make life more complicated for
everyone but them, who are rolling in the dough that they get by
selling big businesses on these programs.

As for the other sciences, it may well be true that he has forgotten
almost all the facts he has learned; and it is obvious that
all deep understanding of physical and biological sciences has vanished with them.

> Your obfuscating noise is
> just transparent and childish insults.

You are just showing solidarity with Mark with this unsupportable crack.

And well you might. Mark backed a long spiel full of libel by you to the
hilt a couple of weeks ago in "What does the atheist say?"

What made it look convincing is that he first played "good cop" to your "bad cop,"
but when you made your libelous reply, he reverted to true "bad cop" form.

Both of you are cunning propagandists, and behavior like this is a
lot more fun for both of you than boring ol' science.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

ONCE AGAIN, the peter persona uses jillery as an excuse to avoid
backing up his own baseless assertions. Not sure when the peter
persona will ever grow up. If it ever happens, my impression is it
will surprise everybody.

<snip your remaining obfuscating noise>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 12:59:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:44:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
> >On 7/23/20 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> [snip to one point]
> >>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,

It's a safe bet that anti-ID zealots will never get over their love affair
with that misprint. For many of them, it is the only real weapon
in their arsenal.

> >> People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
> >> may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
> >> an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
> >
> >For those who don't have the book, what Behe wrote on p. 40 was
> >"effectively can't."

Mark is already stretching the truth, but jillery takes it past the
breaking point.

>
> Correct. The persona named peter continues to spam his mindlessly
> pedantic argument. IC's raison d'être is to show some biological
> systems are too complex to have evolved by unguided natural processes
> aka undirected methods.

This "jillery" is showing her disregard of scientific thinking
when it suits her. IC's raison d'etre is to show that there is
a *significant* *probability* that some biological systems are
too complicated to have evolved by unguided natural processes.

Anti-ID zealots cannot allow even this much, so they have to use
absolutist, unscientific talk like jillery's or at least talk
that sounds absolutist to most people, such as Mark's stretch.

> Behe explicitly asserts on page 40 of DBB
> that only the simplest IC system can evolve without purposeful
> intervention.

The "jillery" who posted this is telling an untruth.
If she had posted a direct quote, this would have been obvious.

Unfortunately, I left my copy back at the university, but I've seen
it enough to know this much. For instance, Behe prefaces it with separating
"direct, Darwinian methods" from indirect ones, acknowledging that
IC systems could evolve by "circuitous, indirect methods". And he neglected
to quantify "precipitously", but he did leave falsifiability as an option
in all cases.

Unlike the propangandists "jillery," Mark Isaak, and numerous other
anti-ID zealots, Behe lets readers know that he is fully cognizant
of the limitations of scientific methodology, even within the
conclusions it draws. Unlike in mathematics, there are no proofs of
a nontrivial nature in biology.

> None of the examples he gives as IC are simple.

Evidently, this "jillery" does not think of the mousetrap as simple.

Granted, it isn't as simple as the thinking that went behind the
counterproductive contributions of Mark and "jillery" to this post.

Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG

This post has a nontrivial scientific component,
relevant for the topics for which talk.origins was set up.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/24/20 2:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 12:59:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:44:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/23/20 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>> [snip to one point]
>>>>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,
>

[...]

>>>> People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint
>>>> may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
>>>> an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
>>>
>>> For those who don't have the book, what Behe wrote on p. 40 was
>>> "effectively can't."
>
> Mark is already stretching the truth, but jillery takes it past the
> breaking point.

It is Nyikos who stretches the truth.

Behe says, on page 40,
"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been
produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the
possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an
interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect
route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained,
irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that
Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum
that science allows."

In other words, maybe some few IC systems could have evolved, but
certainly not all of them.

And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
"confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
fact, it is unfair not to.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/24/20 9:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 1:04:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:36:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 10:59:58 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/20 5:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:09:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:55:36 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/21/2020 1:40 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:24:59 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "IDiot "Super Heroes" like Behe have never demonstrated that his Irreducibly Complex systems exist in nature because ..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Behe's Irreducibly Complex systems do exist in nature. What Behe could, and never will demonstrate is that they cannot have evolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> This knife cuts both ways: no one can demonstrate that they have to have
>>>>> evolved by purely undirected methods.
>>>>
>>>> That's why, rather than a knife, we use a razor. The Razor *does* cut
>>>> out unnecessary unobserved entities, such as supernatural and
>>>> extraterrestrial intelligences.
>>>
>>> This sophomoric comment only shows how superficial your understanding
>>> is of Ockham's Razor, of science, and of the actual playing
>>> field of ID versus undirected: evolution AND abiogenesis AND the fine
>>> tuning of the physical constants.
>>
>>
>> You provide utterly zero basis for your sophomoric comments above.
>

> [snip to where Nyikos provides such a basis]

Oh, nothing left. Imagine that.

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. I don't know if Ockham ever
made the following point explicitly, but I believe it is in the spirit
of his dictum not to replace "I don't know" with "due to a certain entity."

[Glenn]

You're assuming that an "indirect, circuitous route" meant "evolved".

That's a big assumption, and an unsupported one. Is that assumption "fair"?

>
> And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
> "confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
> fact, it is unfair not to.
>

Only because you want it to be. You might as well say that Behe eats snails for lunch.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Incorrect. That's Behe's assumption. He explicitly refers to Darwin
and his criterion.

>That's a big assumption, and an unsupported one. Is that assumption "fair"?

Ask Behe.

>> And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
>> "confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
>> fact, it is unfair not to.
>>
>Only because you want it to be. You might as well say that Behe eats snails for lunch.

So you think "the maximum that science allows" is greater than
certainty. Please specify what you think is greater than certainty.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 18:55:15 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/24/20 2:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 12:59:58 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:44:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/23/20 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 9:39:58 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>> [snip to one point]
>>>>>> Cdesign proponentists claim IC systems can't evolve by purely undirected methods,
>>
>[...]
>>>>> People as ignorant as the one responsible for that misprint

FTR, the misprint to which the peter persona refers is not from
jillery.

>>>>> may well claim that, but Behe does not. Those who claim
>>>>> an unequivocal "can't" are ignorant of what Behe wrote on p. 40 on DBB.
>>>>
>>>> For those who don't have the book, what Behe wrote on p. 40 was
>>>> "effectively can't."
>>
>> Mark is already stretching the truth, but jillery takes it past the
>> breaking point.
>
>It is Nyikos who stretches the truth.
>
>Behe says, on page 40,
>"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been
>produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the
>possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an
>interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect
>route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained,
>irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that
>Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum
>that science allows."
>
>In other words, maybe some few IC systems could have evolved, but
>certainly not all of them.
>
>And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
>"confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
>fact, it is unfair not to.

Thank you for quoting DBB. Now I don't have to. My impression is,
the peter persona mentions Behe only so he can once again spam his
hoary PRATTs like that one.

The peter persona makes a pedantic quibble at best, as proved by
Behe's "Edge of Evolution". In it, Behe argues the same statistical
argument as in DBB but uses different examples. Behe statistical
argument is based on the same assumption as all statistical arguments
against evolution, that some X is too improbable to have happened by
unguided natural processes. And by "too improbable" they mean that
it couldn't happen within the lifetime of a species, or of Earth, or
of the universe. If their argument were true, that makes it a
certainty that evolution could not explain the diversity of life on
Earth. So the peter persona's objection is certainly a distinction
without a difference.

[Glenn]

Sorry, Darwin didn't say "indirect, circuitous route", nor did or does Behe think that an IC system could have evolved by Darwinian evolution. Not ruling out something is proper in science, and does not mean that the claimant thinks it is even possible.

And that is not in contrast to Behe's claim of being confident that Darwinian evolution is unable to make IC systems.

You went further earlier, when you claimed

"Behe explicitly asserts on page 40 of DBB that only the simplest IC system can evolve without purposeful intervention."

That is what is incorrect, as well as Mark's claim above.

>
>
> >That's a big assumption, and an unsupported one. Is that assumption "fair"?
>
>
> Ask Behe.
>

I have.

>
> >> And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
> >> "confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
> >> fact, it is unfair not to.
> >>
> >Only because you want it to be. You might as well say that Behe eats snails for lunch.
>
>
> So you think "the maximum that science allows" is greater than
> certainty. Please specify what you think is greater than certainty.
>

It should be obvious that I disagree with Mark. Let me be explicit: It is not fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize "confidence...skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows". Science does not allow certainty, and Behe does not "explicitly" or otherwise claim certainty, anywhere.

What is fair to you idiots is anything, however underhanded or dishonest your claims and arguments need for your purposes. Some of you are probably confused and think everyone else should be the same. This may likely be why you are making such claims about Behe.

I'll trust Behe's sincerity and honesty any day over the likes of you and Mark.
And you know you're as crooked as a dog's hind leg, in more than one way.

In fact, much of evolution is based on "certainty", whether you agree or not.
And unlike ID, certainty is often openly expressed by evolutionists.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

That's right. Behe said it. Give yourself a star.

> nor did or does Behe think that an IC system could have evolved by Darwinian evolution.

Right again. Behe explicitly said he doesn't think that. OTOH that's
what I said he said. No star for you here.

>Not ruling out something is proper in science, and does not mean that the claimant thinks it is even possible.

Right again. OTOH ruling out something is also proper in science. No
star for you here.

>And that is not in contrast to Behe's claim of being confident that Darwinian evolution is unable to make IC systems.

Right again. You're on a roll. Too bad you didn't notice your
statements agree with Mark and me and contradict your strange
bedfellow.

>You went further earlier, when you claimed
>
>"Behe explicitly asserts on page 40 of DBB that only the simplest IC system can evolve without purposeful intervention."
>
>That is what is incorrect, as well as Mark's claim above.

What part of

"As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the
likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."

do you not understand? Or are you making a pedantic point that he
didn't use the exact same words I did?

>> >That's a big assumption, and an unsupported one. Is that assumption "fair"?
>>
>>
>> Ask Behe.
>>
>
>I have.

Your bald assertion isn't evidence.

>> >> And yes, it is fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize
>> >> "confidence ... skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." In
>> >> fact, it is unfair not to.
>> >>
>> >Only because you want it to be. You might as well say that Behe eats snails for lunch.
>>
>>
>> So you think "the maximum that science allows" is greater than
>> certainty. Please specify what you think is greater than certainty.
>>
>It should be obvious that I disagree with Mark.

A point not in dispute.

>Let me be explicit: It is not fair to use the concept of "certain" to characterize "confidence...skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows". Science does not allow certainty, and Behe does not "explicitly" or otherwise claim certainty, anywhere.

So what do you know is "the maximum that science allows", and how do
you know it?

>What is fair to you idiots is anything, however underhanded or dishonest your claims and arguments need for your purposes. Some of you are probably confused and think everyone else should be the same. This may likely be why you are making such claims about Behe.

Unless you refer to your strange bedfellow, nobody here posted
anything underhanded or dishonest, nor has anybody suggested Behe is
underhanded or dishonest. You sound confused at least and likely
delusional.

>I'll trust Behe's sincerity and honesty any day over the likes of you and Mark.

There's nothing in this thread that requires trust. Everything
relevant is a matter of historical fact that has been documented since
the publication of DBB.

>And you know you're as crooked as a dog's hind leg, in more than one way.

Now you're just ranting.

>In fact, much of evolution is based on "certainty", whether you agree or not.
>And unlike ID, certainty is often openly expressed by evolutionists.

There's an irony here, that you regularly complain about
evolutionists' use of qualifiers, like "it seems" and "could" and
"may" and "likely". Yet now you insist they often openly express
certainty. Could you make up your mind which one to complain about?
Or are you just complaining for the sake of it?

Normally, I would challenge you to give an example of evolutionists
expressing certainty. But you have so much trouble even trying to
back up your claims, and even knowing how to back up your claims. And
now your comments above show you don't even recognize when you
contradict your own claims.

But I see you have no trouble posting your usual mindless personal
attacks and asinine insults.

[Ron Dean]

On 7/14/20 8:50 PM, dale wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 8:26 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 7/14/2020 7:19 PM, dale wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2020 5:56 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2020 4:32 PM, dale wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/2020 8:21 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> Science is just the study of nature ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything is nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Being likely wrong about that has nothing to do with what type of
>>>> IDiots are left in existence.
>>>
>>> Do you know of something that is not part of nature?
>>
>> You should have read further.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are the religious explorer and you don't know that a lot of
>>>> Biblical theists claim that their god exists outside of space and
>>>> time.  Are you claiming that their god does not exist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> At a minimum the concept of divinity is thought of when it comes to
>>> mind.
>>>
>>> Concepts are natural.
>>>
>>> Some concepts might not come to life. Still they are natural.
>>>
>>> Actions of divinity are tremendous in history. Especially if
>>> Universalism is considered.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You just do not get reality do you.
>>
>
> Nature is reality!
>
> Somethings I think are on-topic here are:
>
> 1) Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)

 Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to arrive at the
theory of everything. Unresolved at this point in time.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/theory-of-everything

> 2) First cause argument

 Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
for asserting that the big bang was an exception. There are "virtual"
particles, which occur in a vacuum without a cause for a brief time and
disappear and is said to be real effect. But where and how is the
linkage of "virtual" particles to the big bang? Could they exist where
nothing exist?

https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html

> 3) Biogenesis/creationism
With the chicken and egg problems that purposeful design cannot be ruled
out. The RNA world has it's flaws.

https://www.https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/flaws-in-the-rna-world/4011172.article#/Biogenesis


quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-the-rna-world-is-near-biochemists-argue-20171219/


> 4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)

We observe micro-evolution, so this is real, however to utilize these
minor changes within a species and extrapolate such changes into macro
evolution is a purely hypothetical endeavor and without empirical
evidence. Furthermore, macro-evolution or reading intermediates and
imaginary links between distinct fossils, is strictly built upon theory
such as the whale fossil scenario from a land animal.





>
> Discuss?



--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:05:26 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And so... what??? There are lots of unresolved questions about the
universe.

> > 2) First cause argument
>
>  Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>for asserting that the big bang was an exception.

Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.

>There are "virtual"
>particles, which occur in a vacuum without a cause for a brief time and
>disappear and is said to be real effect. But where and how is the
>linkage of "virtual" particles to the big bang? Could they exist where
>nothing exist?
>
>https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
>
>> 3) Biogenesis/creationism
>With the chicken and egg problems that purposeful design cannot be ruled
>out. The RNA world has it's flaws.
>
>https://www.https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/flaws-in-the-rna-world/4011172.article#/Biogenesis

Can you cite any explanation that doesn't have its flaws? OTOH do you
understand the flaws and limitations of your preferred explanation?

>quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-the-rna-world-is-near-biochemists-argue-20171219/
>
>
>> 4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)
>
>We observe micro-evolution, so this is real, however to utilize these
>minor changes within a species and extrapolate such changes into macro
>evolution is a purely hypothetical endeavor and without empirical
>evidence.

Incorrect and a stupid Creationist PRATT. To say nested hierarchies
are "purely hypothetical" is purely handwaving away reality.

>Furthermore, macro-evolution or reading intermediates and
>imaginary links between distinct fossils, is strictly built upon theory
>such as the whale fossil scenario from a land animal.

So what scenarios would you accept?


>> Discuss?


Your comments don't qualify.

[Ron Dean]

Yes I know. An some may never be impossible inside the  materialist box.

>>> 2) First cause argument
>>  Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.

Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.

>> There are "virtual"
>> particles, which occur in a vacuum without a cause for a brief time and
>> disappear and is said to be real effect. But where and how is the
>> linkage of "virtual" particles to the big bang? Could they exist where
>> nothing exist?
>>
>> https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
>>
>>> 3) Biogenesis/creationism
>> With the chicken and egg problems that purposeful design cannot be ruled
>> out. The RNA world has it's flaws.
>>
>> https://www.https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/flaws-in-the-rna-world/4011172.article#/Biogenesis
> Can you cite any explanation that doesn't have its flaws? OTOH do you
> understand the flaws and limitations of your preferred explanation?

Yes, there are flaws in both, but I think the difficulties point to the
design explanation as the better explanation.

> quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-the-rna-world-is-near-biochemists-argue-20171219/
>
>>
>>> 4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)
>> We observe micro-evolution, so this is real, however to utilize these
>> minor changes within a species and extrapolate such changes into macro
>> evolution is a purely hypothetical endeavor and without empirical
>> evidence.
> Incorrect and a stupid Creationist PRATT. To say nested hierarchies
> are "purely hypothetical" is purely handwaving away reality.

> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05

Nested hierarchies were observed before Darwin first by Carolus Linnaeus
which he saw as the order of nature, and God's handiwork.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05

>> Furthermore, macro-evolution or reading intermediates and
>> imaginary links between distinct fossils, is strictly built upon theory
>> such as the whale fossil scenario from a land animal.
> So what scenarios would you accept?

Observation is _key_ in the scientific method. And what is actually and
predominantly observed in the fossil record is evolution in steps IE
abrupt appearance, followed by long periods of stasis as actually
observed in the fossil record and described by Gould and Eldredge called
"punctuated equilibrium" and controlled by ancient_highly_conserved_
homeobox genes. When intermediates are pointed to, no doubt they are
fitted into a standing theoretical pattern; which way be nothing more
than "best in the field" and have no direct linkage to either earlier or
later species. The predominance of stasis as the overwhelming
characteristic of the fossil record raises questions about finely
graduated changes leading from species to species which is rarely
observed if _observed_ at all.  There is no empirical evidence such as
DNA proving any connecting relationship. Certainly observation takes
precedence over theoretical expectations and unobserved gradualism
should be taken as falsified.

>>> Discuss?
> Your comments don't qualify.
>

--

talk origins

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

I assume you meant "possible". If so, a materialist box necessarily
resolves more questions than a non-materialist box.

>>>> 2) First cause argument
>>>  Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
>> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
>> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.
>Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
>universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
>was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
>beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.

First you say "something has to preclude". Then you say "the designer
replaced the universe as eternal". You just contradicted yourself in
the same paragraph.

>>> There are "virtual"
>>> particles, which occur in a vacuum without a cause for a brief time and
>>> disappear and is said to be real effect. But where and how is the
>>> linkage of "virtual" particles to the big bang? Could they exist where
>>> nothing exist?
>>>
>>> https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
>>>
>>>> 3) Biogenesis/creationism
>>> With the chicken and egg problems that purposeful design cannot be ruled
>>> out. The RNA world has it's flaws.
>>>
>>> https://www.https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/flaws-in-the-rna-world/4011172.article#/Biogenesis
>> Can you cite any explanation that doesn't have its flaws? OTOH do you
>> understand the flaws and limitations of your preferred explanation?
>
>Yes, there are flaws in both, but I think the difficulties point to the
>design explanation as the better explanation.

You're entitled to your opinion. Everybody has one.

>> quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-the-rna-world-is-near-biochemists-argue-20171219/
>>
>>>
>>>> 4)Abiogenesis(macro-evolution, micro-evolution)
>>> We observe micro-evolution, so this is real, however to utilize these
>>> minor changes within a species and extrapolate such changes into macro
>>> evolution is a purely hypothetical endeavor and without empirical
>>> evidence.
>> Incorrect and a stupid Creationist PRATT. To say nested hierarchies
>> are "purely hypothetical" is purely handwaving away reality.
>> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05
>
>Nested hierarchies were observed before Darwin first by Carolus Linnaeus
>which he saw as the order of nature, and God's handiwork.

First you say nested hierarchies are "without empirical evidence".
Then you say Linnaus observed them. You just contradicted yourself
again.

>https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05
>
>>> Furthermore, macro-evolution or reading intermediates and
>>> imaginary links between distinct fossils, is strictly built upon theory
>>> such as the whale fossil scenario from a land animal.
>> So what scenarios would you accept?
>Observation is _key_ in the scientific method. And what is actually and
>predominantly observed in the fossil record is evolution in steps IE
>abrupt appearance, followed by long periods of stasis as actually
>observed in the fossil record and described by Gould and Eldredge called
>"punctuated equilibrium" and controlled by ancient_highly_conserved_
>homeobox genes. When intermediates are pointed to, no doubt they are
>fitted into a standing theoretical pattern; which way be nothing more
>than "best in the field" and have no direct linkage to either earlier or
>later species. The predominance of stasis as the overwhelming
>characteristic of the fossil record raises questions about finely
>graduated changes leading from species to species which is rarely
>observed if _observed_ at all.  There is no empirical evidence such as
>DNA proving any connecting relationship. Certainly observation takes
>precedence over theoretical expectations and unobserved gradualism
>should be taken as falsified.

"Gradualism" <> "macro-evolution. Write that on your forehead.

The following identify empirical evidence of your "imaginary" fossil
links:

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

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cJnnUF2XhE>

<https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2>

Ask yourself why extant whales would share distinct ear bones with
extant hippos and extinct Indohyus, while extant hippos also share
distinct ankle bones and dense leg bones with extinct Indohyus.

Ask yourself why all these fossils with legs show the same distinct
morphology of ear bones and ankle bones, while other fossils do not.

Ask yourself why these fossils show a pattern of the nasal cavity
moving progressively from the skull tip to top, and at the same time
show a pattern of progressive reduction and dislocation of the hind
limbs and reshaping of the forelimbs.

If your answers to these questions are common design, then ask
yourself what possible functions these species do in common that other
species do not, such that an Intelligent Designer would share these
specific features with these species and not others species.

Above you handwave away this evidence of macro-evolution. At other
times you demand a detailed step-by-step explanation of
macro-evolution. Ask yourself what is the point of the latter when you
do the former.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 12:25:43 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

snip

> >>> Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to arrive at the
> >>> theory of everything. Unresolved at this point in time.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/theory-of-everything
> >> And so... what??? There are lots of unresolved questions about the
> >> universe.
> >>
> >Yes I know. An some may never be impossible inside the materialist box.
>
> I assume you meant "possible". If so, a materialist box necessarily
> resolves more questions than a non-materialist box.
>

Not "necessarily", since you admit there are 'lots" of unresolved questions.
A contradiction you make - that doesn't refute the claim that some may never be possible to resolve.
And write this on *your* forehead - a materialist box resolves no questions.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 12:25:43 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

snip

> >>> Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
> >>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
> >>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
>
> >> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
> >> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.
>
> >Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
> >universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
> >was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
> >beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.
>
> First you say "something has to preclude". Then you say "the designer
> replaced the universe as eternal". You just contradicted yourself in
> the same paragraph.
>

Finding fault seems to be your only interest. Well, Ron did not say what you quoted him as saying.
And there was no contradiction.
In context to what his comment addressed, something *had* to precede the universe as an uncaused cause.

And I can also "cite anyone who asserts such a claim"; those who imagine the universe as a self rotating hourglass.
But that doesn't speak to the cause of it's existence other than to deny a preceding cause.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 12:25:43 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

snip

> >>> We observe micro-evolution, so this is real, however to utilize these
> >>> minor changes within a species and extrapolate such changes into macro
> >>> evolution is a purely hypothetical endeavor and without empirical
> >>> evidence.
>
> >> Incorrect and a stupid Creationist PRATT. To say nested hierarchies
> >> are "purely hypothetical" is purely handwaving away reality.
> >> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05
> >
> >Nested hierarchies were observed before Darwin first by Carolus Linnaeus
> >which he saw as the order of nature, and God's handiwork.
>
> First you say nested hierarchies are "without empirical evidence".
> Then you say Linnaus observed them. You just contradicted yourself
> again.
>

No, you just like saying that.
Ironically, if you consider that Ron meant 'observation' to be a "fact" or "with evidence", then you would necessarily have accepted what Linnaeus observed, to be a fact, or empirical evidence.

The *concept* of nested hierarchies is 'observed', but concepts are not empirical evidence or necessarily factual, nor are nested hierarchies themselves necessarily evidential of anything or factual to any degree.

"Of his higher groupings, only those for animals are still in use, and the groupings themselves have been significantly changed since their conception, as have the principles behind them. Nevertheless, Linnaeus is credited with establishing the idea of a hierarchical structure of classification which is based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus#System_of_taxonomy

The observation of "the idea of" apparently didn't hold much 'empirical evidence".
But you are entitled to your own opinion. And you have a big one.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 12:25:43 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

snip

> >Observation is _key_ in the scientific method. And what is actually and
> >predominantly observed in the fossil record is evolution in steps IE
> >abrupt appearance, followed by long periods of stasis as actually
> >observed in the fossil record and described by Gould and Eldredge called
> >"punctuated equilibrium" and controlled by ancient_highly_conserved_
> >homeobox genes. When intermediates are pointed to, no doubt they are
> >fitted into a standing theoretical pattern; which way be nothing more
> >than "best in the field" and have no direct linkage to either earlier or
> >later species. The predominance of stasis as the overwhelming
> >characteristic of the fossil record raises questions about finely
> >graduated changes leading from species to species which is rarely
> >observed if _observed_ at all. There is no empirical evidence such as
> >DNA proving any connecting relationship. Certainly observation takes
> >precedence over theoretical expectations and unobserved gradualism
> >should be taken as falsified.
>
> "Gradualism" <> "macro-evolution. Write that on your forehead.
>

Ron did not equate gradualism with macroevolution. Write that on your forehead.

>
> The following identify empirical evidence of your "imaginary" fossil
> links:
>

All the fossil evidence you could dig up would be *inferred* to be evidence of something. But everything is "empirical", and evidence of something. "Imagine" and 'infer' are words with similar meaning. And if an inference is later found to be wrong, which many have, then those inferences could indeed be regarded as "imaginary".

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/21/21 11:15 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 2/20/21 2:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:05:26 -0500, Ron Dean<rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/14/20 8:50 PM, dale wrote:

[...]

>>>> Somethings I think are on-topic here are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)
>>>   Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to arrive at the
>>> theory of everything. Unresolved at this point in time.
>>>
>>> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/theory-of-everything
>>
>> And so... what???  There are lots of unresolved questions about the
>> universe.
>>
> Yes I know. An some may never be impossible inside the materialist box.

But without that materialist box, zero questions will ever be resolved.
Emphasis on "zero" and "ever". Allowing the supernatural allows an
infinite number of possible answers to any question (and not just any
infinity; aleph-2 at least), and does not allow any means to choose
among them. Logic? Loki doesn't need logic. Parsimony? The Flying
Spaghetti Monster likes superfluity to spice things up. The only
possible resolution, if the supernatural is allowed, is via a religious
war which leaves at most one particularly unimaginative person alive.

Well, another possible resolution, if you can call it that, is to agree
to leave some questions unresolved.

>>>> 2) First cause argument
>>>   Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
>
>> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim?   I can; those who
>> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.
>
> Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
> universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
> was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
> beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.

If there is a beginning, then there can be nothing preceding it, or else
by definition it would not be the beginning.

[...]

> Yes, there are flaws in both, but I think the difficulties point to the
> design explanation as the better explanation.

What about the difficulties with the design explanation?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net

"If one day, my words are against science, choose science."
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:23:54 -0800 (PST), Glenn
<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Something had to precede.

and

>>>The designer replaced the universe as eternal.

> Well, Ron did not say what you quoted him as saying.

Idiot.

[Ron Dean]

On 2/21/21 2:22 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean<rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>> <snip>

>>>>> Nature is reality!
>>>>>
>>>>> Somethings I think are on-topic here are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)
>>>>  Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to arrive at the
>>>> theory of everything. Unresolved at this point in time.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/theory-of-everything
>>> And so... what??? There are lots of unresolved questions about the
>>> universe.
>>>
>> Yes I know. An some may never be impossible inside the  materialist box.
> I assume you meant "possible". If so, a materialist box necessarily
> resolves more questions than a non-materialist box.

How many more could be resolved, we cannot know.

>
>>>>> 2) First cause argument
>>>>  Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>>>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>>>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
>>> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
>>> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.
>> Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
>> universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
>> was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
>> beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.
> First you say "something has to preclude". Then you say "the designer
> replaced the universe as eternal". You just contradicted yourself in
> the same paragraph.

Sorry, about taking so long to get back. I had more pressing issues.

Actually, I did not contradict myself. It was quite obvious that when
the universe was thought to be eternal, it was not a problem. So, that
having been falsified, an eternal designer remains: or do you think
that's a problem?

> Then you say Linnaeus observed them. You just contradicted yourself
> again.
I made no such false claim. Obviously, you're confusing me with someone
else. I accept  that nested hierarchies are real.

Have you even questioned whale evolution.  IOW do you have an inkling of
any criticism of the fossil sequence of whale evolution? If so, how do
you respond to their criticism?
>
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 2/22/21 2:29 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:23:54 -0800 (PST), Glenn
> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Something had to precede.
> and
>
>>>> The designer replaced the universe as eternal.
>> Well, Ron did not say what you quoted him as saying.
>
> Idiot.
>

Who is the idiot here?

--
talk origins

[Glenn]

jillery skillfully excluded jillery's claim " You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. "
Now jillery shoots jillery's foot off again, by once again providing clear evidence to the contrary, and excludes what you did say. There was text between "First you say" and "Then you say".
Something had to precede, and since the universe had a beginning, a designer preceded the universe, and replaced an eternal universe.

Brings a whole new outlook to idiots being "no brainers".

[seand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> Science is just the study of nature.

Forgive me if I'm repeating past comments, but no it sure as shit isn't.

Science, as the word is currently used and understood, is a methodology. Science is the observation of a pattern, the proposition of an explanation for that pattern, the testing of that explanation, and the sharing of the results of that testing. If you aren't engaged in some step in that process, you aren't engaged in science.

The rigor that the word "science" implies is derived entirely from the rigor of this process. There are LOTS of ways to study nature... science is only on of them.

[Ron Dean]

I've "known" Jill for several years. She engages in quit a few threads,
so I suspect she is not always careful in reading the actual text. So,
when this happens her responses fail to hit the mark. I like Jill, she
is one, if not my favorite on TO.
>
>

--
talk origins

[Glenn]

Science is often defined as *the* study of nature.

You "display a serious poverty of imagination".

"The so-called scientific method is a myth."

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-scientific-method-is-a-myth

Likely not the best reference, but it will do.

[Glenn]

Here's another.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys689

"That stirring description suffers from an important shortcoming: we don't really know what the scientific method is. There have been many attempts at formulating a general theory of how science works, or at least how it ought to work, starting with Sir Francis Bacon. His idea, that science proceeds through the collection of observations without prejudice, has been rejected by all serious thinkers. Everything about the way we do science — the language, the instruments, the methods we use — depends on clear presuppositions about how the world works. Modern science is full of things that cannot even be observed at all. At the most fundamental level, it is impossible to observe nature without having some reason to choose what is worth observing and what is not worth observing. Once one makes that elementary choice, Bacon has been left behind."

[Glenn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 11:35:44 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 11:30:44 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 10:55:44 PM UTC-7, seand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > > Science is just the study of nature.
> > > Forgive me if I'm repeating past comments, but no it sure as shit isn't.
> > >
> > > Science, as the word is currently used and understood, is a methodology. Science is the observation of a pattern, the proposition of an explanation for that pattern, the testing of that explanation, and the sharing of the results of that testing. If you aren't engaged in some step in that process, you aren't engaged in science.

Patterns are not observed. They are inferred constructs.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 23:39:06 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/21/21 2:22 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean<rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Nature is reality!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somethings I think are on-topic here are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Universalism (theory of anything, theories of everything)
>>>>>  Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to arrive at the
>>>>> theory of everything. Unresolved at this point in time.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/theory-of-everything
>>>> And so... what??? There are lots of unresolved questions about the
>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>> Yes I know. An some may never be impossible inside the  materialist box.
>> I assume you meant "possible". If so, a materialist box necessarily
>> resolves more questions than a non-materialist box.
>How many more could be resolved, we cannot know.

"How many more" is a tacit admission there are more, which is the only
relevant point here.

>>>>>> 2) First cause argument
>>>>>  Every effect we have ever observed has a cause, there are no
>>>>> verifiable exceptions to this law of causation. So, there is no basis
>>>>> for asserting that the big bang was an exception.
>>>> Can you cite anyone who asserts such I claim? I can; those who
>>>> assert their Designer is an uncaused cause.
>>> Something had to precede. Prior to Einstein, it was accepted that the
>>> universe was eternal, without beginning and without end. So a beginning
>>> was initially unwelcome, however Hubble proved the universe had a
>>> beginning. The designer replaced the universe as eternal.
>> First you say "something has to preclude". Then you say "the designer
>> replaced the universe as eternal". You just contradicted yourself in
>> the same paragraph.
>
>Sorry, about taking so long to get back. I had more pressing issues.

Permanent press might help with that.

>Actually, I did not contradict myself. It was quite obvious that when
>the universe was thought to be eternal, it was not a problem. So, that
>having been falsified, an eternal designer remains: or do you think
>that's a problem?

It's not obvious what you think was not a problem. If you mean to say
an eternal universe made an uncaused cause unnecessary, that would be
incorrect. To the contrary, an eternal universe was considered
evidence of an uncaused cause. Your syllogism above merely replaced
one uncaused cause, ie the universe, with another, ie a designer.
Whether an uncaused cause actually remains depends on when you stop
counting elephants.

More to the point, your reply does not resolve your contradiction I
identified. You made two statements. You second statement presumes
an eternal designer, an uncaused cause. This contradicts your first
statement, that something has to preclude that uncaused cause. Not
sure how you *still* don't recognize the contradiction.

The "4)" quoted text above explicitly distinguishes between "observed"
micro-evolution and "purely hypothetical" macro-evolution. As
defined, micro-evolution, ie adaptations within species, can't
demonstrate nested hierarchies, ie relationships between species.
Macro-evolution does that. Since the above explicitly states Linnaeus
*observed* nested hierarchies, it logically means that he *observed*
relationships between species aka macro-evolution.

If you are now claiming you didn't post the "4)" quoted text above, I
apologize for confusing you with someone else. OTOH if you accept
your authorship, then I have demonstrated *your* contradiction.

It should be "obvious" that you are confused about what "nested
hierarchies" actually means. If there are no relationships between
species, there can be no nested hierarchies, by definition.

I assume your questions above are a tacit withdrawal of your previous
claim, that evidence of fossil links is imaginary, else why criticize
and question something that doesn't exist.

Please assume for argument's sake that I am utterly clueless and
completely ignorant of any and all criticisms and questions about
whale evolution. So present those criticisms and questions you see
fit to present, and I will do my non-expert best to affirmatively
respond to them, and not merely handwave them away.

[jillery]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 01:27:23 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/27/21 11:56 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:25:44 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 2/22/21 2:29 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:23:54 -0800 (PST), Glenn
>>>> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:15:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Something had to precede.
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>> The designer replaced the universe as eternal.
>>>>> Well, Ron did not say what you quoted him as saying.
>>>> Idiot.
>>>>
>>> Who is the idiot here?
>>>
>> jillery skillfully excluded jillery's claim " You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. "
>> Now jillery shoots jillery's foot off again, by once again providing clear evidence to the contrary, and excludes what you did say. There was text between "First you say" and "Then you say".
>> Something had to precede, and since the universe had a beginning, a designer preceded the universe, and replaced an eternal universe.
>>
>> Brings a whole new outlook to idiots being "no brainers".
>I've "known" Jill for several years. She engages in quit a few threads,
>so I suspect she is not always careful in reading the actual text. So,
>when this happens her responses fail to hit the mark. I like Jill, she
>is one, if not my favorite on TO.

There are times when jillery has misread, or has misunderstood what
the author meant to say. When that happens, jillery makes a point of
acknowledging the error.

There are also times when Ron Dean has contradicted himself, or at
least appeared to be confused about what he wrote and the substance of
the discussion.

There are also times when Glenn denies the very words in the quoted
text, manufactures made-up definitions, and mangles other posters
words. This is one of those times.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:38:22 -0800 (PST), Glenn
<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Patterns are not observed. They are inferred constructs.

From OED:
*******************
pattern : noun
a. Something shaped or designed to serve as a model from which a thing
is to be made; a design, an outline; an original.
*******************

Patterns are observed. Some *interpretations* of patterns are
inferred constructs. For example, stellar constellations are
observed. Inferences of celestial beings are interpretations.
Different astronomers observe the same pattern in the sky, but have
historically interpreted those same patterns differently. Not sure
how you *still* don't understand the difference.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:54:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "seand...@gmail.com"
<seand...@gmail.com>:

Everything you say is correct, but doesn't refute what Ron
posted. Science *is* the study of nature (I'll leave open to
argument what "just" means in this context, but I'd argue
that it fits; science isn't about anything *but* the study
of nature); the fact that there are other ways, from
not-as-rigorous to woo-woo, doesn't refute that. IOW, he
didn't claim that science is the *only* way to study nature,
which your post seemed to imply, only that the study of
nature is what science is.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/28/21 4:33 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:38:22 -0800 (PST), Glenn
> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patterns are not observed. They are inferred constructs.
>
> From OED:
> *******************
> pattern : noun
> a. Something shaped or designed to serve as a model from which a thing
> is to be made; a design, an outline; an original.
> *******************
>
> Patterns are observed. Some *interpretations* of patterns are
> inferred constructs. For example, stellar constellations are
> observed. Inferences of celestial beings are interpretations.
> Different astronomers observe the same pattern in the sky, but have
> historically interpreted those same patterns differently. Not sure
> how you *still* don't understand the difference.

Observation and inference are not mutually exclusive categories. All
observations involve complicated neurological processing which could
plausibly be considered "inference", especially when they involve more
than a single tone, odor, or touch. That doesn't mean they are not
observations. If a biologist writes in her notebook, "Nest contains two
robin eggs and one cuckoo egg," she is using a heck of a lot of
inference in translating patterns of brightness and color (and doubtless
some tactile and smell sensations which confirm the context) into the
conclusion that those are eggs of certain types. But that is still an
observation written down in the notebook.

Inferences can be wrong, which means observations may be "wrong". (The
usual term is "illusory".) It is possible to discredit an observation.
But merely calling it an inference says nothing.

[jillery]

Just so everybody is clear, I agree with everything Mark Isaak wrote
above, and AIUI everything he wrote is entirely consistent with
everything I wrote in the quoted text.

[Glenn]

To the contrary, it is very important to realize and be aware of the distinction between inference, observation, explanation, prediction, etc..
When you see a bunny wabbit in the clouds, according to you, you could be wrong.
When you see stars that look like a bunny wabbit, according to you, you could be wrong.
Calling the bunny wabbit an inference says a lot. Or if you prefer, an "illusion", though that has a different connotation.
Calling seeing the bunny wabbit an observation also says a lot. boing boing boing der da bunny go.

[seand...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 10:30:44 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:54:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "seand...@gmail.com"
> <seand...@gmail.com>:
> >On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:>> Science is just the study of nature.
>
> >Forgive me if I'm repeating past comments, but no it sure as shit isn't.
> >
> >Science, as the word is currently used and understood, is a methodology. Science is the observation of a pattern, the proposition of an explanation for that pattern, the testing of that explanation, and the sharing of the results of that testing. If you aren't engaged in some step in that process, you aren't engaged in science.
> >
> >The rigor that the word "science" implies is derived entirely from the rigor of this process. There are LOTS of ways to study nature... science is only on of them.
> Everything you say is correct, but doesn't refute what Ron
> posted. Science *is* the study of nature (I'll leave open to
> argument what "just" means in this context, but I'd argue
> that it fits; science isn't about anything *but* the study
> of nature); the fact that there are other ways, from
> not-as-rigorous to woo-woo, doesn't refute that. IOW, he
> didn't claim that science is the *only* way to study nature,
> which your post seemed to imply, only that the study of
> nature is what science is.

Fair enough. My understanding of "just" in that context was "all that science is, is the study of nature." And with that, I firmly disagree. There are plenty of ways of study that are NOT science, so the two ideas are not freely interchangeable.

If instead, Ron meant that only the natural universe can be studied via science, then I fully agree with that.

[Mark Isaak]

Yes, I was essentially responding to Glenn, whose posts I almost never
see directly. And I do think that it is important to recognize the
cognitive complexity that goes into even basic observation.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 11:40:44 AM UTC-7, seand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 10:30:44 AM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:54:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "seand...@gmail.com"
> > <seand...@gmail.com>:
> > >On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:>> Science is just the study of nature.
> >
> > >Forgive me if I'm repeating past comments, but no it sure as shit isn't.
> > >
> > >Science, as the word is currently used and understood, is a methodology. Science is the observation of a pattern, the proposition of an explanation for that pattern, the testing of that explanation, and the sharing of the results of that testing. If you aren't engaged in some step in that process, you aren't engaged in science.
> > >
> > >The rigor that the word "science" implies is derived entirely from the rigor of this process. There are LOTS of ways to study nature... science is only on of them.
> > Everything you say is correct, but doesn't refute what Ron
> > posted. Science *is* the study of nature (I'll leave open to
> > argument what "just" means in this context, but I'd argue
> > that it fits; science isn't about anything *but* the study
> > of nature); the fact that there are other ways, from
> > not-as-rigorous to woo-woo, doesn't refute that. IOW, he
> > didn't claim that science is the *only* way to study nature,
> > which your post seemed to imply, only that the study of
> > nature is what science is.
> Fair enough. My understanding of "just" in that context was "all that science is, is the study of nature." And with that, I firmly disagree. There are plenty of ways of study that are NOT science, so the two ideas are not freely interchangeable.

You don't seem to realize the truth of that. "All that science is" does not include non-science studies of nature.
The problem is that "science" is not defined.

>
> If instead, Ron meant that only the natural universe can be studied via science, then I fully agree with that.
> > --

Of course, under your definition of 'natural", "study" and "science". Seems you're on a quest to put "patterns" on a pedestal.

[jillery]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 10:02:59 -0800 (PST), Glenn

I agree that calling a bunny wabbit in the clouds is an inference.

I agree that it's incorrect to say that you observed a bunny wabbit in
the clouds.

I agree that the pattern you observed is not your observation of that
pattern is not your inference of that observation of that pattern.
These are all different. The most you can reasonably say is that the
pattern you observed had some resemblance to a bunny rabbit.

So your comments above are strawmen. Boing boing back atcha, bozo.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/28/21 8:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:54:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "seand...@gmail.com"
> <seand...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:>> Science is just the study of nature.
>
>> Forgive me if I'm repeating past comments, but no it sure as shit isn't.
>>
>> Science, as the word is currently used and understood, is a methodology. Science is the observation of a pattern, the proposition of an explanation for that pattern, the testing of that explanation, and the sharing of the results of that testing. If you aren't engaged in some step in that process, you aren't engaged in science.
>>
>> The rigor that the word "science" implies is derived entirely from the rigor of this process. There are LOTS of ways to study nature... science is only on of them.
>
> Everything you say is correct, but doesn't refute what Ron
> posted. Science *is* the study of nature (I'll leave open to
> argument what "just" means in this context, but I'd argue
> that it fits; science isn't about anything *but* the study
> of nature); the fact that there are other ways, from
> not-as-rigorous to woo-woo, doesn't refute that. IOW, he
> didn't claim that science is the *only* way to study nature,
> which your post seemed to imply, only that the study of
> nature is what science is.

Limiting science to "nature" might give the impression that science does
not include the study of, say, how people choose passwords or what will
get people to drive more slowly in residential areas.

[Glenn]

You're agreeing with yourself, not me. Your "observation" is, and one of, inference.
You don't observe da wabbit, you infer da wabbit.
> These are all different.
You are certainly 'different".

>The most you can reasonably say is that the
> pattern you observed had some resemblance to a bunny rabbit.

Only if you are bonkers. Rabbits are not made of clouds.

>
> So your comments above are strawmen. Boing boing back atcha, bozo.
> --

I observe you a so drowned in straw you can't tell one straw bunny from the next.

[Glenn]

I also agree that you make a mockery of scientific observation.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 11:07:28 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

Well, since both of those involve actions taken in nature by
those a part of nature, rather than being somehow "outside
of" nature (IOW, supernatural), I's say they're included in
"nature", as is everything I can think of. Including human
imagination.

If someone has the impression that either of the things you
mentioned are *not* part of nature, I'd say that's a matter
for whoever taught them science.