info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shermer and Meyers discussion
87 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Nov 13, 2021, 12:25:26 PM11/13/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On-4lOWuWQQ&t=1408s
This something up at the creationist news site from the Discovery
Institute. It is a discussion of The God Hypothesis and not a debate.
I have only watched around half of it, but it sounds like IDiots should
listen in on the discussion because most IDiots that we have ever seen
here on TO or uncommon descent or the ARN discussion group likely do not
want to have much to do with any ID perp notion of intelligent design
science. The Top Six are represented in the book, but Meyer uses them
as the usual god-of-the-gaps denial to claim that there is a god. He
does think that this is a legitimate way to address the question, but
nothing in the discussion so far indicates that Meyer uses the "science"
to understand what that god might be like if it exists. Meyer only
wants to claim that there can be a god in there somewhere. There seems
to be no interest in relating IDiocy to his Christian beliefs, the
denial is enough for him and all he gets out of IDiocy. Meyer even
denigrates the attempt by BioLogos to fit the science into their
beliefs. Really, the discussion is never about what such a god would
have been doing in the gap at that time. Meyer is only interested in
defining the gap. Just like MarkE found out that he didn't want to
believe in the designer that fit into the gap that he was creating for
the origin of life, Meyer avoids dealing with that subject.
The God Hypothesis seems to be that some god is needed to create the Big
Bang and fine tune the universe around 13 billion years ago. Over 3
billion years ago this god was responsible for creating life on earth,
and half a billion years ago this god was needed to diversify life
during the Cambrian explosion. Combined into a single hypothesis this
obviously isn't any god that the vast majority of IDiots want to believe in.
As Glenn, Kalk, Bill, MarkE, and likely Dean have figured out, they
don't want to believe in the god that fills the gaps that Meyer is
putting up. IDiocy really was a political scam for ID perps like Meyer
from the very beginning. They had their Wedge strategy and Meyer
coauthored the teach ID in the public schools booklet that they used to
give out with their initial Wedge IDiot video. From Meyer's description
of what he has been doing it is apparent that they never intended to
teach this junk in the public schools. IDiocy like the Big Bang denial
god of the gaps argument were already on the exclusion list of the
creationist rubes. It was one of the science topics that the Kansas
creationists dropped out of their state science standards in 1999. This
was the same year that the Discovery Institute was publishing their
teach ID scam booklet.
The God Hypothesis sounds like a book that IDiots will not want to read.
Most IDiots don't want to know that there is a reason that their god
was diddle farting around with lifeforms over half a billion years ago
to produce the diversity of the Cambrian explosion, and they obviously
don't want to understand what their god was doing around 13 billion
years ago to produce the Big Bang and fine tune the universe.
There was likely never any intent to provide the IDiot rubes with any ID
science to teach in the public schools because the ID perps knew that
the rubes wouldn't want to teach it if they ever managed to produce any.
Meyer knows the Top Six, and he knows that they are placed in their
order of occurrence, but the discussion of his book indicates that he
treats them as disembodied parts, and not something that should be
understood as a whole and Shermer lets him get away with that. It is
all some type of denial for Meyer. He really doesn't want to apply the
science to his Christian religious belief. He is only using ID to lie
to himself about what science can tell him about any creator that might
exist.
Presenting it as a supposed hypothesis should have made Meyer address
how the denial gaps fit together, but he seems to have avoided doing
that, just as the ID perps have avoided putting up the Top Six for over
20 years only to have most IDiots run in denial from having to deal with
them as parts of a whole. No IDiot or ID perp has ever addressed the
Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner since they were put out
4 years ago.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
Meyer's description of them should tell any IDiot why. Even Meyer
doesn't want to apply them to his Christian beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
This something up at the creationist news site from the Discovery
Institute. It is a discussion of The God Hypothesis and not a debate.
I have only watched around half of it, but it sounds like IDiots should
listen in on the discussion because most IDiots that we have ever seen
here on TO or uncommon descent or the ARN discussion group likely do not
want to have much to do with any ID perp notion of intelligent design
science. The Top Six are represented in the book, but Meyer uses them
as the usual god-of-the-gaps denial to claim that there is a god. He
does think that this is a legitimate way to address the question, but
nothing in the discussion so far indicates that Meyer uses the "science"
to understand what that god might be like if it exists. Meyer only
wants to claim that there can be a god in there somewhere. There seems
to be no interest in relating IDiocy to his Christian beliefs, the
denial is enough for him and all he gets out of IDiocy. Meyer even
denigrates the attempt by BioLogos to fit the science into their
beliefs. Really, the discussion is never about what such a god would
have been doing in the gap at that time. Meyer is only interested in
defining the gap. Just like MarkE found out that he didn't want to
believe in the designer that fit into the gap that he was creating for
the origin of life, Meyer avoids dealing with that subject.
The God Hypothesis seems to be that some god is needed to create the Big
Bang and fine tune the universe around 13 billion years ago. Over 3
billion years ago this god was responsible for creating life on earth,
and half a billion years ago this god was needed to diversify life
during the Cambrian explosion. Combined into a single hypothesis this
obviously isn't any god that the vast majority of IDiots want to believe in.
As Glenn, Kalk, Bill, MarkE, and likely Dean have figured out, they
don't want to believe in the god that fills the gaps that Meyer is
putting up. IDiocy really was a political scam for ID perps like Meyer
from the very beginning. They had their Wedge strategy and Meyer
coauthored the teach ID in the public schools booklet that they used to
give out with their initial Wedge IDiot video. From Meyer's description
of what he has been doing it is apparent that they never intended to
teach this junk in the public schools. IDiocy like the Big Bang denial
god of the gaps argument were already on the exclusion list of the
creationist rubes. It was one of the science topics that the Kansas
creationists dropped out of their state science standards in 1999. This
was the same year that the Discovery Institute was publishing their
teach ID scam booklet.
The God Hypothesis sounds like a book that IDiots will not want to read.
Most IDiots don't want to know that there is a reason that their god
was diddle farting around with lifeforms over half a billion years ago
to produce the diversity of the Cambrian explosion, and they obviously
don't want to understand what their god was doing around 13 billion
years ago to produce the Big Bang and fine tune the universe.
There was likely never any intent to provide the IDiot rubes with any ID
science to teach in the public schools because the ID perps knew that
the rubes wouldn't want to teach it if they ever managed to produce any.
Meyer knows the Top Six, and he knows that they are placed in their
order of occurrence, but the discussion of his book indicates that he
treats them as disembodied parts, and not something that should be
understood as a whole and Shermer lets him get away with that. It is
all some type of denial for Meyer. He really doesn't want to apply the
science to his Christian religious belief. He is only using ID to lie
to himself about what science can tell him about any creator that might
exist.
Presenting it as a supposed hypothesis should have made Meyer address
how the denial gaps fit together, but he seems to have avoided doing
that, just as the ID perps have avoided putting up the Top Six for over
20 years only to have most IDiots run in denial from having to deal with
them as parts of a whole. No IDiot or ID perp has ever addressed the
Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner since they were put out
4 years ago.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
Meyer's description of them should tell any IDiot why. Even Meyer
doesn't want to apply them to his Christian beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie
Nov 14, 2021, 4:35:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If the new book is _Return of the God Hypothesis_,
is it a sequel?
Is this Intelligent Designism or is it explicit
Scientific Creationism - which is illegal of course :-)
I don't want to multiply entities beyond necessity
but what argument is offered for the number of gods
being less than two? Especially as Christians have three.
is it a sequel?
Is this Intelligent Designism or is it explicit
Scientific Creationism - which is illegal of course :-)
I don't want to multiply entities beyond necessity
but what argument is offered for the number of gods
being less than two? Especially as Christians have three.
Dale
Nov 14, 2021, 5:05:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
> ... The God Hypothesis ...
1) I am conscious.
2) I am part of "The Whole".
3) "The Whole" is part Me.
4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/
> ... The God Hypothesis ...
1) I am conscious.
2) I am part of "The Whole".
3) "The Whole" is part Me.
4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/
Dale
Nov 14, 2021, 6:50:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 11/14/2021 4:32 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> ... the number of gods ...
there is only one "whole"
> ... the number of gods ...
there is only one "whole"
Kalkidas
Nov 14, 2021, 6:55:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> Wrote in message:r
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:> ... The God Hypothesis ...1) I am conscious.2) I am part of "
If you haven't found it, you aren't really seeking it.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
broger...@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2021, 7:35:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
6) "The Whole" is mostly not conscious.
jillery
Nov 14, 2021, 8:05:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
descriptions are a good match to the Greco-Roman pantheon.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
RonO
Nov 14, 2021, 8:50:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
scientific creationists resorted to when they determined that they did
not want to do any creation science. He emphasized 3 of the Top Six and
lumped fine tuning (#2) into #1, the Big Bang (#3: the origin of life,
and #5 the Cambrian explosion were the other two) so he hit 4 of the Top
Six. #4: Irreducible complexity and #6 human evolution were just
mentioned in passing.
Meyer even denigrated the Gish Gallop, but Gish would put the Top Six in
his Gish Gallop. They were standard denial junk that he would put up as
examples that we did not have explanations for everything. That is how
sad IDiocy is. They don't even acknowledge that all they have is what
already failed the scientific creationists before the ID scam got
started. Both Gish "debates" that I attended in the 1980's had Gish
claiming that we couldn't explain the Big Bang, I don't recall fine
tuning except in terms of how improbable everything coming together is,
He made fun of origin of life studies, he had his speel of the flagellum
as a designed machine, he denied that we could explain the Cambrian
explosion, but back then we thought that it included all multicellular
animals, but today we know that Cnidaria and bilateria evolved before
the Cambrian explosion. He had his claims that the human fossil record
wasn't good enough, so the Gish Gallop contained pretty much everything
that Meyer is claiming supports his God Hypothesis.
Shermer and Meyer only discussed the possiblity of one intelligence
controling the universe. Meyer kept the Top Six as disembodied parts,
but he was always talking about one god being responsible, he just never
put them together to say how his god was responsible for all the parts
and how they looked when they were all considered to be the work of one
god. It is how the ID perps have been selling the Top Six denial since
they started the ID scam. Just the discussion of some god being
responsible for the disembodied parts, and no effort to put them all
together into a coherent hypothesis, and definitely no attempt to
produce a coherent scientific theory.
There likely are not very many IDiots/creationists that want to believe
in the intelligent designer that the ID perps have been hawking all
these years. All IDiots running from the Top Six for the last 4 years
demonstrates that to be a fact. This is likely the major reason that
the bait and switch has been going down on any IDiot stupid enough to
want to teach the ID science for the last 20 years. No IDiot would want
to teach the IDiot science that the ID perps have even if it passed as
science.
Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
RonO
Nov 14, 2021, 9:20:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>
> 1) I am conscious.
> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>
>
One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>
> 1) I am conscious.
> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>
>
advantage of people like Dale.
REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
mohammad...@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2021, 11:00:20 AM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ofcourse you yourself are a moron.
But the truth is that most intelligent design theorists assert God is objective, which is against creationism, because in creationism, the creator part of reality is subjective.
So there is general corruption, generally everone hates subjectivity, both evolutionists and intelligent design theorists alike.
Some intelligent design theorist I debate with asserts that all statements are in principle subjective, and then through "warranting" statements, by for intstance, providing evidence, the statements become objective.
So there is no fundamental logical difference between subjectivity and objectivity, but only a graded difference of warranting.
You see, everyone tries to destroy subjectivity. Everyone is a fact obsessed moron, disregarding subjective opinions.
All the subjectivity that was there in previous decades, now is gone. Common femininity, and mascullinity, which people thought was kind of inevitable, is now very much diminished. Everywhere emotions are down. The oscars, the feeling is gone. The press, they are liars, the feeling is gone. You name it, anything, the emotion for it is down.
It is very simple, and very stupid, academics is destroying the belief in all what is inherently subjective, such as emotions, personal characteristics, and God.
You are a total fucking idiot, destroying society. Anyone can see, society is being destroyed.
Op zaterdag 13 november 2021 om 18:25:26 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
But the truth is that most intelligent design theorists assert God is objective, which is against creationism, because in creationism, the creator part of reality is subjective.
So there is general corruption, generally everone hates subjectivity, both evolutionists and intelligent design theorists alike.
Some intelligent design theorist I debate with asserts that all statements are in principle subjective, and then through "warranting" statements, by for intstance, providing evidence, the statements become objective.
So there is no fundamental logical difference between subjectivity and objectivity, but only a graded difference of warranting.
You see, everyone tries to destroy subjectivity. Everyone is a fact obsessed moron, disregarding subjective opinions.
All the subjectivity that was there in previous decades, now is gone. Common femininity, and mascullinity, which people thought was kind of inevitable, is now very much diminished. Everywhere emotions are down. The oscars, the feeling is gone. The press, they are liars, the feeling is gone. You name it, anything, the emotion for it is down.
It is very simple, and very stupid, academics is destroying the belief in all what is inherently subjective, such as emotions, personal characteristics, and God.
You are a total fucking idiot, destroying society. Anyone can see, society is being destroyed.
Op zaterdag 13 november 2021 om 18:25:26 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:
Dale
Nov 14, 2021, 6:30:23 PM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 11/14/2021 9:18 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>>
>> 1) I am conscious.
>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>
>>
>
> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
> advantage of people like Dale.
There are non-deterministic conjectures around in other places than
> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>>
>> 1) I am conscious.
>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>
>>
>
> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
> advantage of people like Dale.
religion.
Like ...
random/unpredictable genetic mutations
random/unpredictable radioactive decay
random/unpredictable vacuum fluctuations
They will always only be conjecture because something
random/unpredictable is not testable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
RonO
Nov 14, 2021, 8:00:20 PM11/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
REPOST:
One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
advantage of people like Dale.
advantage of people like Dale.
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Nov 15, 2021, 12:45:20 AM11/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:27:27 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>On 11/14/2021 9:18 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>
>
>>>
>>> 1) I am conscious.
>>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>
>> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
>> advantage of people like Dale.
>
>
>There are non-deterministic conjectures around in other places than
>religion.
>
>Like ...
>
>random/unpredictable genetic mutations
>random/unpredictable radioactive decay
>random/unpredictable vacuum fluctuations
Your list above are not conjectures, but factual observations.
>On 11/14/2021 9:18 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>
>
>>>
>>> 1) I am conscious.
>>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>
>> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
>> advantage of people like Dale.
>
>
>There are non-deterministic conjectures around in other places than
>religion.
>
>Like ...
>
>random/unpredictable genetic mutations
>random/unpredictable radioactive decay
>random/unpredictable vacuum fluctuations
Your list above are not non-deterministic, but have known causes.
>They will always only be conjecture because something
>random/unpredictable is not testable.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"Random" and "unpredictable" and "non-deterministic" and "conjecture"
are all different concepts. Look them up.
Dale
Nov 15, 2021, 1:55:20 PM11/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 11/15/2021 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:27:27 -0500, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2021 9:18 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>>
>>>> 1) I am conscious.
>>>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>>>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>>>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
>>> advantage of people like Dale.
>>
>> There are non-deterministic conjectures around in other places than
>> religion.
>>
>> Like ...
>>
>> random/unpredictable genetic mutations
>> random/unpredictable radioactive decay
>> random/unpredictable vacuum fluctuations
>
> Your list above are not conjectures, but factual observations.
> Your list above are not non-deterministic, but have known causes.
>
>
Exactly. They have a cause. They are not random/unpredictable.
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:27:27 -0500, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2021 9:18 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2021 4:03 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:21 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ... The God Hypothesis ...
>>
>>>> 1) I am conscious.
>>>> 2) I am part of "The Whole".
>>>> 3) "The Whole" is part Me.
>>>> 4) "The Whole" is part conscious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> One of the saddest things about the creationist ID scam is that it takes
>>> advantage of people like Dale.
>>
>> There are non-deterministic conjectures around in other places than
>> religion.
>>
>> Like ...
>>
>> random/unpredictable genetic mutations
>> random/unpredictable radioactive decay
>> random/unpredictable vacuum fluctuations
>
> Your list above are not conjectures, but factual observations.
> Your list above are not non-deterministic, but have known causes.
>
>
jillery
Nov 15, 2021, 2:35:20 PM11/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Dale
Nov 15, 2021, 6:15:20 PM11/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
not testable
jillery
Nov 16, 2021, 12:10:20 AM11/16/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
anus is neither a planet nor a source of wisdom. You're welcome.
Glenn
Nov 16, 2021, 12:40:20 AM11/16/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
erik simpson
Nov 16, 2021, 1:15:20 AM11/16/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Nov 16, 2021, 2:00:21 AM11/16/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Are you so full of shit that you aren't aware of imperforate anuses?
jillery
Nov 16, 2021, 3:40:20 AM11/16/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:56:10 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
The above is an example of Glenn aping an imperfect asshole.
0 new messages