Why do you participate here?

[MarkE]

.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> .
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest stuff on origin of life just by claiming that there's been no progress.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> .

I heard it was a good way to pick up hot chicks.

I was apparently misinformed.

[Burkhard]

In the TO context, they probably meant hot dinosaurs
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dinosaurs-that-were-secretly-hot_n_560d860ee4b0dd85030b2ddd/amp

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16 PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
> .
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC

[RonO]

On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
> .
>
I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any
legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
there wasn't any legitimate creation science under development.

The Scientific Creationists had already lost in Federal court in
Arkansas and the Supreme Court for the Louisiana case. I had seen the
Gish Gallop a couple of times, and I wondered if there was any
legitimate efforts in creation science. You know that there wasn't any,
and none ever developed.

I started posting just to see if there were any honest and competent
creationists on that side of the issue. By the 1990's there likely were
no serious scientific creationists that thought that there was anything
that they could teach in the public schools. I actually started posting
around the same time that the ID scam was started by the creation of the
ID scam unit of the Discovery Institute, but at that time no one posting
to TO took notice. Around 1998 the Wedge document was exposed, and that
was about the first thing TO had heard of the ID creationist scam that
had been brewing since 1995. The ID perps began doing what they claimed
that they planned to do in the Wedge document, and the teach ID scam was
their major effort. It turned into a way to sneak creationism into the
public schools when the straightforward approach had failed.

The ID perps ended up doing most of what they said they would do in
their 5 year Wedge plan. They started to debate real scientists, and
the made their ID scam video that they started to give out with their
teach ID scam booklet. They did pretty much everything except publish
any legitimate ID science. All they ever did was make the claims and
respond to their critics, but no ID science was ever produced. By 1999
not much was known about the ID scam on TO, and it wasn't discussed
much. Phillip Johnson posted a few times on TO, but it wasn't about any
ID science. It was mostly his denial about what he called Darwinism.
Julie Thomas was the first IDiot to post to TO and Nyikos started to
support her. By 1999 teaching ID in the public schools was the major
effort of the Discovery Institute, but no one knew what they wanted to
teach. Julie Thomas couldn't seem to describe it effectively enough to
defend it. Scientific creationism remained the primary creationist
nonsense that was discussed on TO until around the time the Dover fiasco
was hitting the fan. By 2001 the ISCID had come into existence and I
and some other TO regulars started to post there to try to figure out
what the ID scam was all about. I also participated at ARN, and was
posting there when the bait and switch scam started to go down. The ID
perps had been selling the teach ID scam for years by 2002, but they had
gained enough public attention to have creationist rubes take them up on
their offer. It was like a wave of interest. The Ohio rubes were first
in the que, and when it came time to put up or shut up the ID perps
started to run the bait and switch scam, and all the Ohio rubes got was
a obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps told them had
nothing to do with ID. Within about a month the bait and switch had
gone down 3 more times. I recall Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana. No
one was getting the promised ID science.

At ARN most posters just shut up about teaching ID in the public schools
but there were still some losers claiming that there was something worth
teaching even if no one could figure out what it was. Around a year
later they all had to face the fact that no ID was ever going to be
taught in the public schools because the Ohio switch scam lesson plan
came out and they had to delete all references to creationism and ID,
and even remove the ID perps as authors for some of the material that
they had obviously used to create the lesson plan. Mike Gene was the
only one to face the situation in a straight forward manner. He claimed
that he had given up on teaching the junk back in 1999. Mike Gene was
likely the most competent IDiot posting at ARN and was supposed to have
a science background. He had attended the IDiotic conferences that the
ID perps would have, and made his contributions, but he had decided
years before that teaching the junk was not going to happen.

What ticked me off about the ID scam is that none of the IDiots, even
Mike Gene would deal honestly with the situation. They all just went
back to the same old obfuscation and denial as if ID were still viable.

The bait and switch kept going down, and IDiots continued with the same
obfuscation and denial stupidity. Around the time that Dover hit the
fan, I started to call them IDiots, and ID perps, and what they
supported as being the ID scam because that is all that it had been for
around 3 years. The bait and switch scam had gone down every single
time the creationist rubes had wanted to teach the ID scam junk. The ID
perps even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but
failed because the Dover rubes had already obtained their "free" legal
service. Even though the ID perps that had sold the ID scam told them
not to do it, they did it anyway, and ID was demonstrated to be the scam
that it had always been.

What is sad is that after Dover the ID perps doubled down on the teach
ID scam and put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming that the
federal court ruling was wrong, and that IDiocy could still be taught in
the public schools, but the bait and switch kept going down. Louisiana
adopted the switch scam in 2008. The ID perps had to send a team down
to Florida back in 2009 when 9 county school boards wanted to teach ID,
and the state legislature was proposing a bill to teach the ID scam in
the public schools. The ID perps really did send a team down to Florida
to run the bait and switch, and the Florida rubes never got any ID to
teach and eventually dropped the issue instead of bending over for the
switch scam. Louisiana had the bait and switch run on them a second
time when they tried to use the switch scam legislation to teach ID in
the public schools and the ID perps had to remind them that the switch
scam had nothing to do with ID.

Texas eventually adopted the switch scam, but screwed up in 2013 by
trying to use the switch scam to get creationist supplements into
textbooks. The ID perps had been justifying their bait and switch
tactics by claiming that they opposed "requiring" ID to be taught, but
that year both Louisiana and Texas tried to use the switch scam to put
creationist supplements into textbooks. Both states claimed that they
were not requiring ID to be taught, but that they were just providing
teachers with the means to teach the subject if they wanted to teach it.
The ID perps ran the bait and switch again, anyway. The ID perps
ended up deleting the paragraph with the "require" ID to be taught
exclusion from their education policy. That paragraph also contained
the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public
schools, so the ID perps effectively stopped claiming that ID could be
taught.

The bait and switch had to continue. The ID perps had to run the bait
and switch on the Utah rubes in 2017 at the same time that they were
putting up the Top Six that killed ID on TO.

It is sad that the ID perps noted that they had never done something as
stupid as putting up their best evidence in the order in which they must
have occurred in over 20 years of the existence of the ID scam. The
reason that it had never been done before became obvious when most of
the IDiots still posting bailed out of the ID scam. Glenn pretended not
to notice, and Nyikos missed the event, and when he returned he
cluelessly continued as he had before. Even after he had been informed
about Kalk and Bill he remained clueless. Most of the TO regulars
missed the event, and I didn't know it, but they were blaming me for
harassing the IDiots with some fantasy refutation of the Top Six. All
that I had ever done with the Top Six was present them as the ID perps
had presented them, and it was the IDiots that could not deal with that
reality.

Presently, there continues to be no honest endeavor to promote any
legitimate creation science on TO. The main reason for this is that the
Top Six demonstrated that there just aren't very many IDiotic
creationists that wanted there to be any legitimate ID creation science.
Any legitimate science would just be more science that had to be denied.

The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and
happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second
round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the
microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of
multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is
called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record
occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth
(#6).

Ron Okimoto

[Abner]

MarkE wrote:
> Why do you participate here?

Occasionally I learn something about biology, geology, etc. It's worth skimming just to see what comes up, and just ignoring the stuff that is a waste of time.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Imma gonna respond to MarkE with a somewhat more serious response
than my prior one.

I subscribe to most of what Bill Rogers wrote. That's part of it.
Burkhard's response is also part of it, at least the first two points,
I don't really have a people or a tradition.

The learning part is key. I did a lot of "lurking". There were some amazing
people taking part, with diverse expertises, many with multiple expertises,
some in areas where people consider me an expert but these people
knew more than me, or at least had very valuable perspectives.

But beyond all of those good reasons, there was something allied
to the teaching reason. Yes, I like to teach. I worked hard to learn
things, and suffered through the pains of "unlearning" things I
thought I knew to be true but it turns out just weren't so. That sort
of misery loves company, you share the pain to discovery of the
things you mistakenly believed with others who mistakenly believed.

But mostly, it's the next level of teaching.

It has been observed that a lie can travel halfway around the world
while the truth is still putting its boots on. In that vein, talk.origins
used to be a fascinating case study. Some of that remains.

How could people possibly believe that the Noahic Flood was real?
How could they deny the other evidence for a universe ~13 billion
years old? You see the claims, you watch a parade of well informed
people lay out the evidence, and someone is unswayed.

As a teacher, you can take two perspectives: it's the teacher's fault
for not making things clear, or it's the listener's fault for refusing
the obvious. The latter is the coward's way out.

I've known a few great teachers. They had a special ability to
discover the root of a student's failure to understand and then
adapt their teaching to breach that wall. Talk.origins is a great
laboratory for observing this in practice, and for occasionally
trying my own hand at breaching a few walls. Part of that
includes self-checks on what isn't getting past my own walls.

All that said, too many are ultimately refractive to learning.
But they can still on occasion serve as a foil against which
on can pontificate in a didactic manner to get one's fix of
of illuminating pontification. It gets it out of your system so
you are less likely to annoy your friends and family.

[Mark Isaak]

Or Jack Chick tracts.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
>> .
>- Pathological need to teach
>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
>

No! Please say it ain't so!

>
>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC

--

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

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>
>>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
>>> .
>>- Pathological need to teach
>>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
>>
>No! Please say it ain't so!

>>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC

So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
> .
Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.

I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians.
Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.

[Burkhard]

But in both cases it was me who said it?

So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

1) I came here knowing nothing about evolution and wanted to learn
more about how it interfaces with my religious beliefs.

2) Thinking about the arguments put forward here has encouraged me to
think more deeply about my religious beliefs.

3) Participating here has widened my knowledge beyond the immediate
issues of evolution and religion and encouraged me to read some
fascinating books about other topics.

4) There is a social element to the group of regulars and I enjoy
interacting with various types of people that I would not normally
encounter in my everyday life.

[MarkE]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:00:16 AM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
> .
As Christian with an appreciation of science, the nexus of the two has always been of great interest to me. My faith doesn't depend on any particular scientific model, but science does have some bearing on how I think about the world and belief.

A growing understanding of the cell reveals greater and greater levels of complexity. The simplest cell is recognised to be a finely-tuned factory. If we were to witness an operating cell enlarged to our scale, it would be an overwhelming experience I think. Similarly with DNA, once reductively thought of as an inert linear code and mostly "junk". But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense information storage, regulation and intricate function are being discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.

Why do I participate here? I don't mind a good debate, for one. What I particularly value is, perhaps ironically, the selective pressure t.o applies to ideas. I usually adopt the brace position before posting, and observe the strength and quality of counter-arguments offered to assess and refine my own thinking, as best I'm able. More than once I've had to pause and rethink my assumptions, logic, or knowledge. My thanks to those who have constructively engaged over the years to this end. I hope I return the favour from time to time.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
>> ><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>> >
>> >>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
>> >>> .
>> >>- Pathological need to teach
>> >>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
>> >>
>> >No! Please say it ain't so!
>>
>> >>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
>> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
>
>But in both cases it was me who said it?

Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you

said it?


>So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
>Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"

Ok. I acknowledge your mileage varies.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.

>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Mark Isaak]

I started out of interest in biology and religious religion and their
intersection. I stayed to learn a lot (on diverse topics, including
many having nothing to do with origins) and to hone my writing skills.
I continue to stay for that, for the community, and out of habit.

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:25:16 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
> <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
> >> ><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
> >> >
> >> >>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
> >> >>> .
> >> >>- Pathological need to teach
> >> >>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
> >> >>
> >> >No! Please say it ain't so!
> >>
> >> >>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
> >> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
> >> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
> >> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
> >> another case of not what is said but who says it.
> >
> >But in both cases it was me who said it?
> Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
> said it?

Well, I considered it possible that you got the attribution wrong and thought they came
from different people, which after all can happen easily.
As both referred to me, and hence X=Y , I could not see how you got from that
to the first being complementary of one person, and the second critical of another
person.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > .
> >
> I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any
> legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that

[]

> The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and
> happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
> during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second
> round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
> billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
> could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
> life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
> years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the
> microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of
> multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is
> called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record
> occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth
> (#6).
>

These are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
debate about it/them.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

IAWTP

[RonO]

They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type
creationists have left. Look at MarkE's use of the origin of life (#3
of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.

It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
was no science that they wanted to accomplish. Their geology, age of
the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam
started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the
Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.

The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal
reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this
reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type
biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
what it tells them about the creation.

It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists
ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
science that they had to deny.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."

and

"Someone is wrong on the Internet."

are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.

More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:25:16?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>> <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
>> >> ><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
>> >> >>> .
>> >> >>- Pathological need to teach
>> >> >>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
>> >> >>
>> >> >No! Please say it ain't so!
>> >>
>> >> >>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
>> >> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
>> >> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
>> >> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
>> >> another case of not what is said but who says it.
>> >
>> >But in both cases it was me who said it?
>> Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
>> said it?
>
>Well, I considered it possible that you got the attribution wrong and thought they came
>from different people, which after all can happen easily.

I acknowledge it could have. In this case it did not. Do you
acknowledge your "?" was ambiguous?

>As both referred to me, and hence X=Y , I could not see how you got from that
>to the first being complementary of one person, and the second critical of another
>person.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that Bob regularly posts "Someone
is wrong on the Internet" as a criticism of others' behavior, even as
he also practices that same behavior, and thus my previous comment.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 11:08:18 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Uh-huh.

Please continue to enjoy yourself with your delusions.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
> I started out of interest in biology and religious religion and their
> intersection. I stayed to learn a lot (on diverse topics, including
> many having nothing to do with origins) and to hone my writing skills.
> I continue to stay for that, for the community, and out of habit.
>

And you wrote a talk.origins adjacent book more in tune with the Golden Age
of the group.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thread downward spiral to commence in 3…, 2…, 1…

[Lawyer Daggett]

Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with

>>> >>- Pathological need to teach
>>> >>- spotted someone being wrong on the internet

>>> >>- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC

It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on
self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.

That was the set-up.

Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.

Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.

Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.

It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.

[*Hemidactylus*]

There’s also “ensoulment” or the advent of qualia/subjective consciousness
some find to be a contentious topic. There’s someone who comes here with
that from time to time. Literally their name is “someone”.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 08:28:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

And you with yours.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Do you think Burkhard is Socratic? What is Socratic?…

As a gadfly Burkhard isn’t very good at being pesky. Instead of midwifing
the thoughts of others he usually supplies more of his own situated
well-informed content. Socratic method doesn’t lend itself to a usenet sort
of interaction very well.

[snip rest]

[*Hemidactylus*]

MarkE <mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:00:16 AM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
>> .
> As Christian with an appreciation of science, the nexus of the two has
> always been of great interest to me. My faith doesn't depend on any
> particular scientific model, but science does have some bearing on how I
> think about the world and belief.
>
> A growing understanding of the cell reveals greater and greater levels of
> complexity. The simplest cell is recognised to be a finely-tuned factory.
> If we were to witness an operating cell enlarged to our scale, it would
> be an overwhelming experience I think. Similarly with DNA, once
> reductively thought of as an inert linear code and mostly "junk". But
> more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense information
> storage, regulation and intricate function are being discovered. I see a
> creator's hand in these.
>

Sorry but our genome is mostly junk. The turning former junk into
functional genes narrative is overplayed by creationists and adaptationists
alike.

[jillery]

That button was pushed long ago, Bozo, and not by me.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:45:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:


> Do you think Burkhard is Socratic? What is Socratic?…

.
Not in meaningful ways. Probably never even tried Hemlock.
.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.

>The first is self-awareness but borders on
>pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
>takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
>comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
>you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on
>self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
>forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
>Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
>and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
>if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
>
>That was the set-up.
>
>Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
>the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
>but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
>gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
>to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
>pun to toss back.
>
>Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
>like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.

Here's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and
I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.

>Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
>as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
>
>Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
>next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
>have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
>It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
>very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
>
>It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
>of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
>"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
>not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
>"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.

Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong
on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:


> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
> strip.

Delusions spring eternal.

[jillery]

FYI reasonable meanings of "defuse" don't include adding fuel to the
fire.

[Lawyer Daggett]

.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the
broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking
themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with
"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed
significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************

Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.

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

Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.

[*Hemidactylus*]

What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
other self-help chants run amok.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the occasional f-bomb
tirade but I do have a damper switch. Find yours.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.

Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather
natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some. My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:16:29 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
>>> strip.
>>
>> Delusions spring eternal.
>>
>What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
>change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
>difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
>being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
>other self-help chants run amok.

FWIW, I read his response as simply akin to the frog delusionally
hoping the scorpion might be able to control its stinging instinct.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.

I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.

> Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest stuff on origin of life just by claiming that there's been no progress.


NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.

In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.

The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.

MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.

The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.

This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.

The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.

We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]


If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.


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

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
>> >> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
>> >> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
>> >> strip.
>> >
>> > Delusions spring eternal.
>> >
>> What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
>> difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
>> other self-help chants run amok.
>
>Follow along with me here.
>Accept the things one cannot change.
>Hope springs eternal.
>Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
>in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
>
>Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
>the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather
>natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
>at least for some.

For me, "the wisdom to know the difference" underpins the other two
parts. Badly founded hope can be counter poroductive.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:40:15 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/26/23 3:20 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >>> .
> >> I heard it was a good way to pick up hot chicks.
> >>
> >> I was apparently misinformed.
> >
> > In the TO context, they probably meant hot dinosaurs
> > https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dinosaurs-that-were-secretly-hot_n_560d860ee4b0dd85030b2ddd/amp

Looks more like something out of National Lampoon than Huffington Post.

It has nothing to do with the controversy over whether all (or some) non-avian dinosaurs were hot blooded,
otherwise it would be on topic for talk.origins, and even more for sci.bio.paleontology.


> Or Jack Chick tracts.

Nobody here has anything to do with them, AFAIK. The closest anyone came
in my experience was Ray Martinez, but he disappeared several years ago
and has been rumored dead.

Jack Chick died on October 23, 2016. May God, if there is a God, have
mercy on his soul, if he had a soul. [That's a close paraphrase of a prayer
attributed to Voltaire.] He has much to answer for.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:

> On 8/28/2023 3:04 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500
> > RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
> >>> .
> >>>
> >> I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any
> >> legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
> > []
> >> The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and
> >> happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
> >> during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second
> >> round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
> >> billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
> >> could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
> >> life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
> >> years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the
> >> microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of
> >> multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is
> >> called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record
> >> occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth
> >> (#6).
> >>
> > These are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
> > debate about it/them.
> >
> >

> They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type
> creationists have left.

More to the point: YOU aren't interested in debating them.
YOUR interest in them is a bunch of speculation about
the reasons why MarkE and Glenn and Kalkidas
don't want to support all six of them at once.

Look at MarkE's use of the origin of life (#3
> of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
> to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
> gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
> gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.

The God of the Bible has many interpreters. Augustine already
made fun of some stories of Genesis before the time of Abraham.
Like many Christians, he was only interested in the OT in places where
it was relevant to the NT.

The Catholic Church is a big tent which includes Thomists
on the one hand and Michael Behe on the other.
Behe is happy with all the top six, especially #4,
while the Thomists don't like the top six for reasons almost diametrically
opposed to the reasons you imagine that MarkE, Glenn, and Kalkidas dislike them.

Personally, I don't think any of these three dislike them. I think they
don't want to discuss "the top six" with YOU because of the hate-driven
way you treat them.


>
> It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
> was no science that they wanted to accomplish.

They have nothing to do with the scientific side of ID exemplified
by Behe and even Stephen Meyer, and are therefore straw men
where meaningful discussion of ID is concerned.


> Their geology, age of
> the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
> giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
> gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
> had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
> denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
> explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam
> started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the
> Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.

In what you say next, you have to be referring to six articles
in Evolution News which INTRODUCE six topics. If you
mean the six topics they introduce, then you lie every
time you call an article in Evolution News that discusses one or more of them
"second rate denial compared to the Top Six."


> The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the
> majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
> majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
> creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
> responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
> Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal
> reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
> would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
> to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
> on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
> related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this
> reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type
> biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
> what it tells them about the creation.
>
> It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists
> ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
> science that they had to deny.

Behe is not a creationist. He even argues for common descent
in _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_. These two
books don't even mention Irreducible Complexity (IC) but
talk about much more mainstream science.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Good point. Thanks.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
>>>> strip.
>>>
>>> Delusions spring eternal.
>>>
>> What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
>> difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
>> other self-help chants run amok.
>
> Follow along with me here.
> Accept the things one cannot change.
> Hope springs eternal.

And if one is a pessimist or fatalist or jaded cynic? I’m recalling a
one-line dismissal of the movie “Hope Floats” that said “So does a turd”.

> Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
> in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
>

Some optimism may be healthy. Those more in tune with reality tend toward
mild depression.

>
> Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
> the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather
> natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
> at least for some. My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.
>

There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Actually, in retrospect, I think I was interpreting Lawyer Daggett prima
facie as labeling the Serenity Prayer itself as delusional perhaps due to
religious origin. It’s maybe due to Dawkins’ rhetoric in the past calling
stuff delusional and I had recently watched an offputting recent video of
Dawkins and Peter Boghossian that had primed me for that reaction. Weird
that I’d get hypersensitive to the point that I might misinterpret
Daggett’s meaning.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
> “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
> one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
> here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.

https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9

[*Hemidactylus*]

I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could
apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns
well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.

[Kalkidas]

I have little interest in the "Top Six". The ever-expanding vocabulary
of the pseudo-science of evolution is only a smoke and mirrors cover-up
intended to draw attention away from the philosophical dead-end of
Darwinism and all its materialistic cousins.
Philosophy rules science. If that order is reversed, you get
totalitarian monsters like Dr. Fauci.

[RonO]

The problem is that you never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any
IDiotic science, and the Top Six just demonstrated that fact in a way
that you couldn't keep lying to yourself about and still support the
bogus ID creationist scam. You now have little interest in the reality
of the Top Six because it is the only way that you can keep lying to
yourself about the issues. Darwinism is just something that you have
made up that probably doesn't even exist in this reality. What we all
have is what is between the gaps. What is between the gaps isn't
darwinism it is just what we have discovered about nature. Just because
you don't want to believe what you know exists for religious reasons,
doesn't change reality. Denton informed the IDiots long ago that IDiots
couldn't expect much to change with any IDiotic successes. He told you
that evolution was a fact of nature that any IDiotic explanation was
going to have to deal with, but most IDiots ignored him and kept lying
to themselves that there was some ID science that they had, but it
turned out that there was no IDiotic science that most IDiots like you
ever wanted to accomplish. IDiots like you always wanted the ID perps
to fail. Any scientific success would just be more science to deny.

Tell us all how happy you would be if Behe identified his three neutral
mutations that had occurred during the evolution of the flagellum over a
billion years ago in order to make the flagellum his type of IC system
(#4 of the top six). Behe would know what came before, and he would
know the order that the mutations had occurred in a lineage that did not
previously have a flagellum. Would you cherish the results or lump them
into "darwinism" and keep lying to yourself about reality? Behe is
another ID perp that told you that biological evolution was a fact of
nature decades ago.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

So you hate materialism. Noted.

> Philosophy rules science.

Philosophy and science have a contentious relationship. Science emerged
(gods I hate that word) from natural philosophy. Science is now about
finding how the world works. Philosophy still engages in some why stuff but
is properly more about method (eg- Popper and descendants) and cleaning of
language about what exists (ontology). In some areas, like consciousness,
philosophy still has the upper hand and might always have that.
Phenomenology and meaning are areas along with ethics and morality where
crass scientism will piss me off, though probably not for the same reasons
as you might hold given your all too obvious biases.

> If that order is reversed, you get
> totalitarian monsters like Dr. Fauci.
>

I got all my Fauci ouchies.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:18 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >
> >> There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
> >> “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
> >> one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
> >> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
> >> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
> >> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
> >> here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
> >
> > https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
> >

> I could ... perceive a slight where you are using that

> Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could
> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns
> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
> appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.

I don't like doing this but here goes. Set your ego to rest. I generally like
your contributions. Even the rambled philosophical musings that tempt
me to have flashbacks. If there are some posts I dislike, they are the ones
where you indulge in flaming aholes as aholes, usually because I tend to
agree, realize how unnecessary it is because we already know, and I
am tempted to realize that people probably have a similar reaction
when I let loose. That and most flames are boring. Then again, I try to make
allowances for others and even for myself, as long as there's some rarity
to it all, and an attempt to make it less boring. Now don't ever make me
do this again.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:25:18 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
> >
> > I started out of interest in biology and religious religion and their
> > intersection. I stayed to learn a lot (on diverse topics, including
> > many having nothing to do with origins) and to hone my writing skills.
> > I continue to stay for that, for the community, and out of habit.
> >
> And you wrote a talk.origins adjacent book more in tune with the Golden Age
> of the group.

Thanks for alerting me to the existence of Mark's book. From the information on it in Amazon,
it seems focused on the kind of creationism which the Talk.Origins Archive dismantled.
However, as I pointed out in reply to Ron O, the scientific theory of ID is a whole
different ballgame.

Mark published his book in 2007, when I was still in a 9+ year absence from talk.origins,
and this is the first I recall reading about it.
.
Do you reckon the Golden Age of talk.origins to have already ended by the time Mark published it?


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
> > ><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
> > >
> > >>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Nah, you are just giving some spoilers, which is not the same
thing as spoiling it. There is considerable overlap, but what you
write below is outside that overlap.

> The first is self-awareness but borders on
> pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
> takes the edge off.

Yes, it's self-deprecating humor. I used to be good at it myself,
but too many mean-spirited participants in talk.abortion treated it as if
I were hanging a "Kick me" sign on my own back, so I pretty much
gave it up by the time I started participating in talk.origins.

> The second line of course references a classic
> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet.

Yup, I saw that one when it came out. From the looks of it, jillery
may have missed it.

>This is full on
> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
> Socrates, and his ultimate fate.

Yup, Burkhard's line refers to the "crime" of which he was
guilty -- helping youth think for themselves in a rational way.
Even in a "democracy" [actually, oligarchy] like Athens, that
is dangerous, and so the charge was spin-doctored to
read "corrupting the youth".

I'm reminded of Caesar's words in Shakespeare's
"Julius Caesar":

"Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
He thinks much; such men are dangerous."

> It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
>
> That was the set-up.
>
> Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
> the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
> but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
> gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
> pun to toss back.
>
> Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
> like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.

> Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
> as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
>
> Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
> have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
> It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
>
> It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
> of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
> "does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
> not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
> "you're not as funny as you imagine."

I've long contemplated pasting up above my desks, both here at home
and in my university office: "It's later than you think."

> noli turbare circulos meos.


Thanks for that extended reflection. I won't spoil it here by telling you
about some times when you didn't follow your own advice.
That is a topic for another, ongoing thread.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
> > .
> Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
> Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
> quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.

It exists nonetheless; keep reading.

> I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
> man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
> to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
> Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
> with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians.
> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
> supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
> The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
> are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.

> But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.

It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:


The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.

By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England. Rees personally opts for the multiverse solution,
but the facts he relates are almost equally supportive of a Designer of our universe with intelligence and powers
that are supernatural in comparison to any that could arise in our universe.

What is not tenable intellectually is the opening sentence of _Cosmos_, by Carl Sagan:
"The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be." It says in effect: "Our < 14 billion year old universe
is the incredibly lucky winner of a one-time, never to be repeated lottery with only one winning ticket
out of > 10 raised to the power of the number of electrons in our universe."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
>
--

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

[jillery]

Yes, please obtain the wisdom to know the difference, if only for the
novelty of the experience.

>>My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 18:24:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The second line of course references a classic
>> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
>> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet.
>
>Yup, I saw that one when it came out. From the looks of it, jillery
>may have missed it.

Ipsi dixit.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:18?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >
>> >> There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
>> >> “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
>> >> one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
>> >> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
>> >> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
>> >> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
>> >> here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
>> >
>> > https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
>> >
>> I could ... perceive a slight where you are using that
>> Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could
>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns
>> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
>> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
>> appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.

OTOH you and Hemidactylus have plenty of stamina to pretend you know
better and instead exercise your inner trolls by posting asinine
allusions and pointless personal attacks for the sake of it.

>I don't like doing this but here goes.

So stop doing what you claim to dislike. That should be easy enough
to figure out, even for a Usenet lawyer.

>Set your ego to rest. I generally like
>your contributions. Even the rambled philosophical musings that tempt
>me to have flashbacks. If there are some posts I dislike, they are the ones
>where you indulge in flaming aholes as aholes, usually because I tend to
>agree, realize how unnecessary it is because we already know, and I
>am tempted to realize that people probably have a similar reaction
>when I let loose. That and most flames are boring. Then again, I try to make
>allowances for others and even for myself, as long as there's some rarity
>to it all, and an attempt to make it less boring. Now don't ever make me
>do this again.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:06 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:16:29 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
>>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
>>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
>>>>> strip.
>>>>
>>>> Delusions spring eternal.
>>>>

>>> What?s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot

>>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
>>> difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
>>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
>>> other self-help chants run amok.
>>
>> FWIW, I read his response as simply akin to the frog delusionally
>> hoping the scorpion might be able to control its stinging instinct.
>>
>Good point. Thanks.

That's the kind of reply I expect from one scorpion to another.

[jillery]

I know you know you can't cite where I post f-bombs, or anything of
the kind. So your comments above are just more of your baseless
allusions that you post when you feel like exercising your inner
troll.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I think there are some caveats here.
Generally speaking, I agree. Technically, there are some issues.

If one admits some scenario whereby some oddball exceptional
thing kicks off our universe, that scenario cuts into being a
part of the probability of 1 and those that invoke this oddball
scenario have a foot in the door. Of course, we still have no
useful parameters with which to bound the likelihood of the
oddball scenario(s). I don't know how to admit or exclude
such oddball scenarios other than by fiat.
.
The problem is presuming that the probability of 1 excludes
scenarios that would be perceived as supernatural influence.
.
As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over

someone being wrong on the Internet.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:22:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
>>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
>>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
>>>>> strip.
>>>>
>>>> Delusions spring eternal.
>>>>
>>> What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
>>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
>>> difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
>>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
>>> other self-help chants run amok.
>>
>> Follow along with me here.
>> Accept the things one cannot change.
>> Hope springs eternal.
>
>And if one is a pessimist or fatalist or jaded cynic? I’m recalling a
>one-line dismissal of the movie “Hope Floats” that said “So does a turd”.
>
>> Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
>> in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
>>
>Some optimism may be healthy. Those more in tune with reality tend toward
>mild depression.

Depends on whether you think the glass is half-full or half-empty -
I'm more of a half-full person.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You see this is a perfect example of your problem here. I said I go on
f-bomb tirades. You interpreted that as me saying you go on f-bomb tirades.
And you go on to talk about baseless allusions. Maybe step back from the
keyboard and go find a hobby. I’d suggest a cruise but COVID seems on the
upswing. You will perhaps misinterpret that as me suggesting you get COVID
because reasons not of my making.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ought implies can…"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have
the ability."

What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White.
You made this exchange oddly about you.

Cue Carly Simon: “You walked into the party like you were walking onto a
yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye…”

What is your major malfunction?

[MarkE]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
> However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
> AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
> get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
>
> I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
>
> > Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest stuff on origin of life just by claiming that there's been no progress.
>
>
> NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
> Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
> "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
> if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
>
> In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
> "reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
>
> The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
> "the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
> nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
>
> MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
> several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.

Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.

Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...

> The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
>
> This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
> is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
> in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
>
> The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
> under primitive earth conditions.
>
> We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
> could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
> because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
> in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
>
>
> If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
> have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
> that I have envisioned, let me know.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

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

[MarkE]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:30:22 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on

> pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
> takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on
> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
> Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
>
> That was the set-up.
>
> Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
> the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
> but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
> gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
> pun to toss back.
>
> Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
> like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.

> Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
> as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
>
> Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
> have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
> It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
>
> It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
> of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
> "does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
> not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
> "you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.

Worth reading.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I understand it, and have arguments that involve extending probabilities
to the infinite plane or whatever, that the sophomoric naysayers who try
to flesh out your little sentence don't have any clue about.

All they can say is that the probability theory of which *they* know
makes it impossible to justify the fine tuning argument.

>They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
> could support us?

That use of "us" is idiotic and bespeaks a literalist reading
of Genesis 1.

Correction: it goes beyond it by being ignorant of C.S. Lewis's
Perelandra trilogy, which talks at great length about four species
of intelligent creatures, three on Mars and one on Venus. .

" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
> question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
> support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
> question?", and the answer to that is 1.

That is a denial of the very existence of probability theory,
because it implicitly gives any statement about actual data
-- past, present and future -- a probability of either 1 or 0.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I'll have to re-read your original "manifesto" of why you
post to talk.origins and compare it with what you are writing here.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
> > However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
> > AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
> > get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
> >
> > I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
> >
> > > Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest stuff on origin of life just by claiming that there's been no progress.
> >
> >
> > NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
> > Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
> > "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
> > if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
> >
> > In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
> > "reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
> >
> > The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
> > "the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
> > nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.

By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."

> > MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
> > several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.

> Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.

As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.

>
> Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...

I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.

In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.

> > The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
> >
> > This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
> > is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
> > in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
> >
> > The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
> > under primitive earth conditions.
> >
> > We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
> > could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
> > because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
> > in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
> >
> >
> > If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
> > have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
> > that I have envisioned, let me know.

Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:41:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:45:18?AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>> >On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming your point is that the source affects the
probability distribution (which may be incorrect; I'm not
sure), I have to disagree; "probability=1" addresses *only*
the trivial fact that in order to be here to experience it
(and to ask how it came to exist in such a perfect way, the
"see how the water is shaped to exactly fit the hole"
idiocy) requires zero assumptions regarding anything. How it
got that way is a separate question, one which cannot be
answered via the "logic" used to generate the question.

>
>As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
>that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
>events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
>succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
>of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
>to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
>clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
>behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
>If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
>be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.
>

Ron is very good at explaining technical details of
evolutionary biology (IMHO; I'm not a biologist); he simply
has a monomania (that is *not* a flame, simply an
observation) about ID and those, both scam artists and "True
Believers", who embrace it to the total exclusion of
evidence to the contrary. Sobeit; I can ignore that and
learn from his other posts.

That aside, IMHO it matters not a bit how "unlikely" the
events leading to us existing in a "perfectly designed"
universe might have been, especially since we have no real
idea, claims of IDists to the contrary, how much those
"perfectly designed" parameters could vary and still allow
us, and the universe, to exist. The universe exists. We
exist. And how it happened that everything was "just right"
to allow that is now, and (again IMHO) will continue to be
for the foreseeable future, both unknown and unknowable;
that's why I'm an agnostic. The discussions are interesting,
but so are those regarding the population of angels on
pinheads. Completely unproductive, though; I prefer
discussions about science and scientific knowledge.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:11:24 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Minor correction; I believe it was "hair", not "hat".

>
>What is your major malfunction?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 01:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

He said he does occasionally...

"I let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the
occasional f-bomb tirade"

...not that you ever did.

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> He said he

Relax. Nobody accused your narcissistic ego-droppings
of amounting to participation.

Well, except for one of your own alters...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726946429995761664

[Abner]

Peter wrote:
> The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
> [and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
> to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
> and a Designer of our physical universe.

I'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.

I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.

> By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
> for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.

Now that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).

At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
being able to solve that much simpler case.

If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?

Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.

[broger...@gmail.com]

........

> If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
> in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.

Well, I cannot do it, but Max Tegmark did it.

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html

From the original paper

Abstract. Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy limit
corresponding to classical spacetimes with different dimensionalities. We argue that all but
the 3+1dimensional one might correspond to ‘dead worlds’, devoid of observers, in which
case all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting
a 3+1dimensional spacetime. With more or less than one time dimension, the partial
differential equations of nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers to
make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms
and perhaps no stable structures. A space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational
force and may be too simple and barren to contain observers.

[MarkE]

You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.

I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Another dead water discussion.

Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.

Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.

Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.

As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.

Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are expressive of the spirit.


Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

[Gary Hurd]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 11:00:16 AM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> .


I was the director of a natural history museum in the 1990s. We had crazy people come and insist the fossils were fakes, and that we were Satanists destroying American children.

The internet was still rather new and slow.

I wanted to learn more about creationists. I did find a "usenet" group TalkOrigins. It had been started to dump trolls wasting bandwidth on other usenet groups. Wesley Elsberry started a website, and a review process to maintain the more interesting posts by scientists.

To have a paper published by the TO Archive you needed to post to the public TO discussion, and respond to critical comments. I think my first one was "Dino-blood and the Young Earth" in 2005.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Wesley Elsberry is a name I haven’t heard in a long time. There was a
poster named Mel Turner who was very helpful back in the day (late 90s).
Pretty sure Mel had a Duke affiliation.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It's nice to see a response to me by you, Abner. I was just about to comment
on your own account of why you participate here, but that can wait.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:55:19 PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:

> Peter wrote:

> > The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
> > [and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
> > to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
> > and a Designer of our physical universe.

> I'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me;

It is one, technically. Did you look at what I wrote about the following third
possibility before you deleted it?

"What is not tenable intellectually is the opening sentence of _Cosmos_, by Carl Sagan:
"The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be." It says in effect: "Our < 14 billion year old universe
is the incredibly lucky winner of a one-time, never to be repeated lottery with only one winning ticket
out of > 10 raised to the power of the number of electrons in our universe."

And note, in The World According to Carl Sagan, there is no possibility of any other
universe coming into existence in the whole of reality. Is this something which
sits well with you?

> but the idea
> of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.


> Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
> merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
> that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
> existence, would be a highly probable type of universe.

I haven't read it, but the concept of "type of universe" is quite ambiguous.

More importantly: the Big Bang theory is a highly sophisticated application
of general relativity, *inter alia*. As you may know, Einstein tried to find
a unified field theory incorporating gravity with the other forces -- electromagnetic,
nuclear, weak -- but he failed, and no one else has succeeded since his day.

So intricate is the Big Bang theory that at one point it was called into question
as a result of an announcement by Japanese experimenters that the background radiation
deviated from the curve of black body radiation. This is the background radiation of ca. 3 degrees Kelvin
whose discovery first seemed to produce victory of Big Bang over
Hoyle's steady state theory. Fortunately for Big Bang, this particular announcement could
not be duplicated. However, it took the COBE satellite to gather enough
data to show that the entire spectrum of the background radiation fit the
black body spectrum closely enough.

That data itself required many months of gathering, and until the results came in,
Hoyle and company were getting optimistic about the Big Bang being wrong.
This was not the only problem, either; there were others, but they too
were laid to rest in the eyes of almost all cosmologists by the COBE data.

>They then looked for ways
> that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
> quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
> the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
> features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
>
> I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
> her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
> whole new universe" version of infinite universes.


> > By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
> > for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.

> Now that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
> exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.

I see that you have not read Martin Rees's _Just Six Numbers_. Take the simplest,
called N. It is the ratio of the repulsion of protons to each other to the gravitational
force pulling them together. It is about 10^36 -- 1 with 36 zeros after it. If it were
"only" 10^30, anything as large as ourselves would be crushed out of existence.

Worse yet, the typical lifetime of a star would be around 10,000 years. That is
a ridiculously short time for life to evolve to produce forms of our intelligence.
As Rees put it more elegantly:

""Instead of living for ten billion years, a typical star would live for about 10,000 years. ... exhaust[ing] its energy before even the first steps in organic evolution had got under way."

> Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
> as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge.

How well does the picture I gave, attested to by the Astronomer Royal of England,
and a Professor of Physics at Cambridge University when Rees wrote that book,
sit with you?

> I've seen a number of
> analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
> and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
> really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
> beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
> *any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
> that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
> and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.

I've given you a source that you can peruse at leisure; how about giving me one?

I've seen articles in Skeptical Inquirer that purport to show what you are saying,
but with so much disagreement, why would you put any store by any of them?

> And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
> to fall out at the end of the calculation ...

That is so far from Rees's highly consistent and well informed reasoning, that
I think you are reading speculation that is a waste of time. And he is not alone:
the world-class physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies deduces many of the same
things in _The Goldilocks Dilemma_. But it is a more difficult read, because it
ranges over many other ideas, so I recommend Rees's book for a first look.

> IMO such calculations are ideology, not
> really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
> universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
> nothing IMO).



> At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
> results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
> results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
> calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
> than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
> being able to solve that much simpler case.
>
> If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
> in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.

Rees gives the answer that Newton may have figured out already:
planetary orbits would be completely unstable under the inverse-cube
law that would result from four spatial dimensions. The slightest perturbation
would either send a planet crashing into its "sun," or speeding out into the
cold void between the stars.

Mind you, there are some theories about there being ten or eleven spatial
dimensions, but the extra ones above 3 are sub-microscopically small. Rees
spends a bit of time on these theories and their relation with hypothetical superstrings.

>Not "life as we know
> it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
> assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
> it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
> really neat article for a mathematics journal.

Nobody would want an article that "reinvents the wheel" of planetary orbits.

> You don't have to show it to me ...
> this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
>
> Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
> I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.

I hate to burst your bubble, but you have a lot of reading to do.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another dead water discussion.

There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.

Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.

>
> Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.
>
> Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
>
> Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
>
> As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.

Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.

>
> Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are expressive of the spirit.
>
>
> Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.


Adieu,


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

[much mercy snippage]

>>
>> As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the
>> computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on
>> zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become
>> quite apparent in that ordering.
>
> Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
> between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
>

That’s something I can agree with there.

[Abner]

Peter wrote:
> Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
> between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.

> And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.

While most of us have various disagreements, Nando is one of the few things we all seem to be
able to agree on. It may be a low bar, but we all give each other the credit for having clearer
arguments and more sense than that!

Perhaps not agreeing with Nando can be our common bridge to mutual understanding? :)

[Abner]

Peter wrote:
> It's nice to see a response to me by you, Abner. I was just about to comment
> on your own account of why you participate here, but that can wait.

It can indeed.

Abner wrote

> > I'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me;

> It is one, technically. Did you look at what I wrote about the following third
> possibility before you deleted it?

It was at the end, and didn't strike me as germane to my point. My point is that we
know so little about how even our kind of life comes about, and pretty much nothing
about how universes coming about, that *any* estimates of probabilities are pretty
much nonsense ... pretty much statements of ideology and belief rather than mathematics.

That would apply just as much to Sagan's claim as to anything in that book you mentioned.

> And note, in The World According to Carl Sagan, there is no possibility of any other
> universe coming into existence in the whole of reality. Is this something which
> sits well with you?

It's a statement of belief, just like claiming that abiogenesis is impossible or improbable
or probable or inevitable or that there must be millions of universes or that the universe
is obviously designed.

> > Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
> > merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
> > that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
> > existence, would be a highly probable type of universe.

> I haven't read it, but the concept of "type of universe" is quite ambiguous.

Up to you if you want to read it or not.

> > > By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
> > > for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.

> > Now that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
> > exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.

> I see that you have not read Martin Rees's _Just Six Numbers_.

No, but I've read a number of other books on the subject and found them all to be
a matter of fitting the arguments to the desired conclusion rather than actually
applying knowledge. You have not given me any good reason to add that book
to my reading list.

> > Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
> > as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge.

> How well does the picture I gave, attested to by the Astronomer Royal of England,
> and a Professor of Physics at Cambridge University when Rees wrote that book,
> sit with you?

Basically as an argument from ignorance with a scientific degree to prop it up.

I've read fairly extensively on this issue, and came to my conclusions based on
that reading. That you have read a book that comes to a conclusion you like and
therefore decide that it is good reasoning is not a surprise to me; the people who
come to other conclusions are just as enthusiastic about the books and articles
that support their side.

Having read through these various arguments, I haven't found any of them particularly
impressive.

> > If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
> > in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.

> Rees gives the answer that Newton may have figured out already:
> planetary orbits would be completely unstable under the inverse-cube
> law that would result from four spatial dimensions. The slightest perturbation
> would either send a planet crashing into its "sun," or speeding out into the
> cold void between the stars.

And that would make it very unlikely that our universe's type of life would exist. Yes,
it is very unlikely that life of our type could live in a universe with different physical laws.
But that doesn't address the challenge at all, since the challenge was about *any*
type of life existing, not about life as we know it. How do you know that the
alternate universe couldn't have life that wasn't entirely different in nature (since it
relied on alternate physical laws) and therefore didn't need planets? There might
be sentient life in that universe saying "As we know, life requires brilligs to exist,
and since brilligs couldn't exist in a universe with only 3 spatial dimensions it
is quite clear that life cannot exist with only 3 spatial dimensions."

You have just given me very good reason not to read Rees's book; he's trapped in
the "calculating the odds of life as we know it existing under alternate physical laws"
trap that I mentioned in my previous post, which does nothing at all to calculate
the odds of life existing under those alternate physical laws.

Earth type life requires liquid water to exist. Does that prove that life can only exist
on planets with liquid water? Earth type life requires our physical laws to exist.
Does that prove that life can only exist in universes with our physical laws?
I find that sort of claim to be very weak.

> >Not "life as we know
> > it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
> > assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
> > it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
> > really neat article for a mathematics journal.

> Nobody would want an article that "reinvents the wheel" of planetary orbits.

So you've fallen into the same trap that Rees apparently did by your report; you
are assuming that our sort of life is the only sort of life possible, even under
alternate physical laws, and that therefore only physical laws like ours are
compatible with life. A rather small loop that is only justified by lack of
ability to imagine life unlike ours existing ... all life must be Earth life in a'
cheap rubber mask.

> > Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
> > I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.

> I hate to burst your bubble, but you have a lot of reading to do.

Or I've already done a lot of reading, perhaps more than you have, and with
a more open mind and more imagination, and come to a conclusion that
there are more possibilities than you have considered. But you go on believing
that anyone who disagrees with you just hasn't read enough; the idea that
someone might be knowledgable, open minded, and still disagree with you is a
bit much, eh?

[Mark Isaak]

Why are *you* trying to sound like an idiot? I presume you were wise
enough to suspect that I used "us" to refer to more than "Peter and I".
Why, then, if you are able to understand it as more encompassing than
that, are you unable to suspect that it could be even more encompassing
than *your* assumption of a literalist reading of Genesis?

> " and get a very small probability, but the relevant
>> question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
>> support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
>> question?", and the answer to that is 1.
>
> That is a denial of the very existence of probability theory,
> because it implicitly gives any statement about actual data
> -- past, present and future -- a probability of either 1 or 0.

Balderdash. The probability of something having happened, given that it
happened, is always going to be 1. Probabilities of other things
(including the probability of something having happened, given that we
don't know whether it has happened) are still perfectly free to have
other values.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/28/23 10:41 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:45:18 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>>> On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
>>> could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant

>>> question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
>>> support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
>>> question?", and the answer to that is 1.
>>>

>> It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
>> beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
>
> I think there are some caveats here.
> Generally speaking, I agree. Technically, there are some issues.
>
> If one admits some scenario whereby some oddball exceptional
> thing kicks off our universe, that scenario cuts into being a
> part of the probability of 1 and those that invoke this oddball
> scenario have a foot in the door. Of course, we still have no
> useful parameters with which to bound the likelihood of the
> oddball scenario(s). I don't know how to admit or exclude
> such oddball scenarios other than by fiat.
> .
> The problem is presuming that the probability of 1 excludes
> scenarios that would be perceived as supernatural influence.
> .

> As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
> that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
> events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
> succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
> of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
> to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
> clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
> behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
> If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
> be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.

I don't know whether the problem is you or me or both, but I don't
understand.

But in trying to figure your meaning, I have come to revise my
conclusion. The probability that a universe came into being with the
ability to support intelligent life, given that the universe supports
intelligent life, is NOT exactly 1, because there is the possibility
that we are living in a universe which is NOT (naturally) capable of
supporting life, but supernatural forces allow us to exist anyway.
However, that conclusion is rather the opposite of what the fine-tuning
argument is attempting to say.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.

Why don't you do science without mathematics, seeing as that you don't really believe mathematics can accurately model the universe?

This kind of nonsense where universal constants are abitrary numbers chosen from the number line. It is not understanding that mathematics starts with the symbol zero, and all is derived from zero. A universal constant is never going to be an arbitrary number. It is a universe, a unity, because it is tied up with zero, and constants obviously have a mainline place in that ordering in respect to zero. You lack common sense.

Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 01:55:19 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+3, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.
>

I have every time I happen to read any of your posts Chez Watt moment.
What "decision is a fundamental reality of physics" means? Is it
equivalent of:

"Resolution reached is a Russellian monism of natural science of
matter."

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

No clue about decision, and no clue about the entire subjective part of reality, incuding human emotion and personal character. The dumbest in history.

Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 16:30:20 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:00:52 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>You see this is a perfect example of your problem here. I said I go on
>f-bomb tirades. You interpreted that as me saying you go on f-bomb tirades.


Actually, your comments above is a perfect example of YOUR problem
here. You interpret my interpretation as unreasonable. If your
complaint isn't about something equivalent to f-bombs, then your
example is a pointless analogy as well as a baseless allusion. Perhaps
you could learn how to write clearly.


>And you go on to talk about baseless allusions. Maybe step back from the
>keyboard and go find a hobby. I’d suggest a cruise but COVID seems on the
>upswing. You will perhaps misinterpret that as me suggesting you get COVID
>because reasons not of my making.


You first.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:11:24 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
>>>>>> “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
>>>>>> one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
>>>>>> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
>>>>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
>>>>>> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
>>>>>> here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
>>>>>
>>>> I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
>>>> Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could
>>>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns
>>>> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
>>>> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
>>>> appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
>>> originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
>>> is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
>>> petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
>>> T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
>>
>>
>> Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
>> innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over

>> someone being wrong on the Internet.
>>

>Ought implies can…"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have
>the ability."

Can implies choice, while inability implies compulsion. Did someone
have a gun to your head and force you to post to this thread?

>What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White.
>You made this exchange oddly about you.
>
>Cue Carly Simon: “You walked into the party like you were walking onto a
>yacht
>Your hat strategically dipped below one eye…”
>

>What is your major malfunction?

To the contrary, you, *Hemidactylus*, explicitly referred to a comment
by me, jillery. To refresh your convenient amnesia:

"I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are
using that Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut
up."

The above refers to your previous comments in this thread. A
reasonable conclusion is you're continuing your theme to complain
about me. Apparently, your major malfunction here is to exercise your
inner troll and blame me for it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>He said he does occasionally...
>
>"I let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the
>occasional f-bomb tirade"
>
>...not that you ever did.

I never said that he said...

Either way, it's an irrelevant analogy and a pointless allusion.