Is there really any such thing as intelligent design science produced by ID perp creationists?

[RonO]

Is what the ID perps call intelligent design, scientific? The ID perps
have put up links that seem to be Luskin basically lying about the issue
that has existed for the last quarter of a century. Luskin put up an
article on what ID is and how it should be defended, and it is still
recommended on the ID scam unit web site, but absolutely no IDiots are
interested in it. The IDiots at uncommon descent quoted out of a book
on science and faith edited by the ID perps instead of discussing what
Luskin was lying about.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/

Kalk would rather put up Hoyle's tornado through a junkyard fallacy that
was understood to be bogus before the ID creationist scam had to take
over from scientific creationism.

Luskin makes similar false claims in his discussion in a video link put
up by the ID scam unit.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/debate-is-intelligent-design-advancing/

Luskin puts up his version of science that was never science and no ID
science has ever existed. Phillip Johnson finally acknowledged that
fact after the Dover fiasco, so how can Luskin still be lying about
something like this? No IDiots seem to want to defend Luskin's take on
IDiocy being scientific.

Glenn would rather put up second rate IDiot denial about sickle cell
anemia mutations than try to use Luskin's lies to support his religious
beliefs. Probably the last thing that Glenn wants to believe is that
his designer is responsible for the mutation that causes most of the
cases of sickle cell anemia, but Glenn would rather wallow in the denial
than support his beliefs with the "ID science" that Luskin claims
exists. How does that work for IDiots?

What is sad about what Luskin is lying about is that the ID perps
including Luskin are careful to not call the Top Six IDiotic evidences
for intelligent design, scientific evidence. They bend over backwards
to just call it "evidence" of some unspecified type. Sewell was even
corrected when he called the Top Six, scientific evidence. The Top Six
used to include IC, so was IC ever any science worth talking about?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Any IDiots that are left should understand what Luskin is putting out
and claiming. There don't seem to be any IDiots left that are willing
to deal with Luskin's claims in any type of rational and honest manner,
so what does that mean about the creationist ID scam?

How can this reality ever be considered to be some type of advancement
for the creationist intelligent design scam? ID has only been a bait
and switch scam that creationists have been running on themselves for
the last 20 years.

Does anything that Luskin is claiming mean that the bait and switch will
not go down on any group of creationist rubes stupid enough to believe
Luskins "teach ID" propaganda. Really, Luskin is one of the authors of
the teach ID scam material that was put out after the Dover fiasco, and
has been updated around every 3 years since.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

Luskin is arguing that the science of IDiocy can be taught in the public
schools, but everyone knows that, that is never going to happen because
the ID perps have run the bait and switch on any rubes stupid enough to
try to teach the junk 100% of the time for the last 20 years, and all
the rubes get from the ID perps is an obfuscation switch scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed. The Luskin that is participating
in the creationist bait and switch scam is the Luskin that is making the
false claims about the existence of ID science. What does that say
about the current advances of the creationist ID scam?

Ron Okimoto

[israel socratus]

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life.
It's just been too intelligent to come here."
/Arthur C. Clarke /

[Öö Tiib]

Maybe so or maybe our lifeform is too hideous?
<https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html>

[RonO]

Why not address the issue? Is this the future of the creationist ID scam?

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[IDentity]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:42:26 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>Is what the ID perps call intelligent design, scientific?

If understanding how nature works and what it's purpose is is science,
then yes.

[IDentity]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 05:41:17 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 3/27/2022 8:33 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>> "I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life.
>> It's just been too intelligent to come here."
>> /Arthur C. Clarke /
>>
>
>Why not address the issue? Is this the future of the creationist ID scam?

As long as you consider ID a scam and not a possible explanation
you'll never have your question answered. You can't understand
something you're biased against for then you're not objective.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Aristotle's final cause ("what its purpose is") has played little part
in science since David Hume. Once you've decided that the final cause
is God you've withdrawn from science.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:41:57 +0200, IDentity <iden...@invalid.org>
wrote:

Do you apply your last sentence to evolution?

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

[RonO]

The fact is that all intelligent design has been is a bait and switch

scam that creationists have been running on themselves for the last 20

years. No ID science was ever produced, so all the IDiot rubes ever
have gotten is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps
at the Discovery Institute claim has nothing to do with intelligent
design. That is the current reality. If you claim otherwise
demonstrate what you want to claim.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/_LmHw1cMIJk/m/SdqWGNmOCgAJ

Why don't you take the Top Six and wax gloriously about all the ID
science and tell us what it all has amounted to. You shouldn't have to
run from the best that the ID perps can give to you.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

You should not want to wallow in the denial. If ID is not a creationist
scam what would you be doing instead?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

How wrong can you be. Demonstrate that the ID perps have ever added to
our knowledge of nature. Science is just the study of nature, but the
ID perps have avoided accomplishing any science worth calling science.
They don't even call their best evidence for IDiocy scientific evidence
because they do not use it as scientific evidence.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Demonstrate what you claimed about IDiocy. What has IDiocy done to
better understand nature. Science is more than making junk up, you have
to dermonstrate that your claims really do apply to nature.

The reason why no science ever was accomplished is because the ID perps
understood what the scientific creationists had found out. There is no
creation science that IDiot/creationists want to do because they do not
want to believe the answers that they get.

Take the Top Six and use them to build the best IDiotic alternative that
you can, and you will see why no science was ever attempted. The
majority of IDiots are young earth creationists and don't want to
understand any of the science involved in the Top Six. The Old earth
creationist IDiots don't want to believe in such a creator because it
isn't Biblical enough. Demonstrate that for yourself. Over 13 billion
years ago some designer created the universe with the Big Bang. Some
fine tuning went on before or during the Big Bang, and a second round of
fine tuning happened after the universe cooled enough to produce
galaxies and individual solar systems. It took around 8 billion years
to produce the elements that our solar system was made of out of dying
stars, so that the second round of fine tuning could have occurred to
create the earth of 4.5 billion years ago. Around 3.8 billion years ago
this designer created life, and life has been evolving on this planet
ever since. The designer kept life at the single cell stage for over 2
billion years before evolving multicellular plants and animals. Over a
billion years ago the designer gave bacteria the IC flagellum. Over
half a billion years ago the designer is responsible for the rapid
radiation of multicellular animals during a 25 million year period
called the Cambrian explosion. A lot of new genes and Cnidaria and
bilateral animals had already evolved before the Cambrian explosion
happened. Humans evolved from an ape like ancestor within the last 8
million years.

Determine for yourself why no IDiot science was ever accomplished.
Reality doesn't fool the rubes and sell books.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

The answer to the question in your thread title, the question you've been repeating for years is "No." You won't change anybody's mind about it with your posts, but you know that already.

[Robert Carnegie]

Saying "God did it" isn't science. Proving that
God did it is science, but that hasn't happened yet.
"Intelligent Design" claims to be science, but no
science supporting a conclusion of "Intelligent Design"
is shown. So it isn't science.

[RonO]

Check out IDentity's posts. If he isn't just a nym shifter there is a
chance that he can become like Phillip Johnson and realize that there is
no IDiot science to support. He might even one up all the IDiots that
have posted to TO recently and actually try to demonstrate that there is
any ID science worth calling science. How long has it been since that
happened?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Science is itself a conclusion, derived from centuries of accumulated
opinion, a towering stack of hypotheses. Is closely resembles the structures
of religion. We may agree that this or that conjecture seems more agreeable
than some other but it's the agreement that holds it all together, not the
things agreed on. In many ways modern consensus seems an inadvertent
continuation of 17th century orthodoxy.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/30/22 2:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> [...]

> Science is itself a conclusion, derived from centuries of accumulated
> opinion, a towering stack of hypotheses. Is closely resembles the structures
> of religion. We may agree that this or that conjecture seems more agreeable
> than some other but it's the agreement that holds it all together, not the
> things agreed on. In many ways modern consensus seems an inadvertent
> continuation of 17th century orthodoxy.

Aside from the fact that both involve multiple people, what structural
similarities do you see shared by both science and religion?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Joe Cummings]

It's wonderful how consistently Bill gets things wrong.

If anything, science is not a conclusion , but a hypothesis.
He paints his "science" as a theological type discussion, and omits
the most important thing about it.

Tes, you can debate all you want about how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin, but you'll never witness them dancing.
You can discuss all you want about what's in god's mind, but you'll
never get a message from him.
These, of course, are legitmate arguments in the field of theology,
because it's evidence free.

But with science, you' ve got a different ball game: You have to deal
with evidence.When you have evidence, you try to explain it, and show
how it interacts with the rest of nature.
You develop a new hypothesis, possibly, and then you have the duty of
testing it.

It's a million miles from theological speculation.

Sometimes I aawake with a start in the small hours of the night,
wondering whether Bill wil actually address the difference between
science and theology. In my experience, Bill always, just always,
refuses to consider the differences between science and religion.

It's useful for him to do this, because he then has no need to address
any data the science produces, including the overwhelming amount of
data backing up the theory of evolution.

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:36:33 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Science is not a conclusion, but a process which leads to verifiable
conclusions. Once again you confuse cause and effect.

[Bill]

Being wrong is no problem for me since I'm fairly sure no one is right. We
all bumble along pretending that dissent is a tool of the ignorant.

Science is a way of seeing the world, a point of view. All other points of
view are false because they aren't science. We've seen how people in the
past have developed complex and sophisticated intellectual systems that were
believed to provide real answers to their questions. Science is just another
iteration.

Any attempt to comprehend the world creates an explanatory context wherein
the explanations make sense. The idea that things can be explained is,
itself, an explanatory context, something assumed, a priori. Since there is
no way to distinguish the thought from the thinker, we have no objective
reality. Human thought is the only reality we can experience.

Science provides answers, but to whom?

Bill

[Joe Cummings]

Remarkable. Even when I argue that science bases itself on evidence,
Bill says that science is a "point of view," resembling all other
points of view

Which of these other "points of view" bases itself on evidence, and
acts to produce further evidence? And which other "point of view"
publishes evidence that may contradict a previously held hypothesis?

Science is dstinguished from other "points of view" by the nature of
its efforts to understand the world. It is always approaching terra
incognita, whereas other "points of view" are working on pre-existing
ideas or texts and justifying them. I'd be fairly surprised if some
one said they were doing scientific exegesis. Examination of the
results of an experiment, yes.

Does science regard all other "points of view" as "wrong?" Not
necessarily. If we take history, science can provide much useful
information to history, and indeed, can show that certain
iinterpretations are just plain wrong.

As an example, take the Genesis myth. The only source for that myth
was Hebrew and Babylonian texts; Science has been researching our
origins for the best part of 200 years and has never come up with
anything like confirmation of the myth.

Although there have been plenty of verbal acrobatics to defend
Genesis, there has been no one, as it were, "convinced" by all the
sound and fury of the creationists

Does Bill know of anyone who "became" a creationist as a result of the
creationist movement? How does he explain the absence of "converted"
creationists?

Unfortunately, time presses. I'll return to this later.



Joe Cummings

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

This is a review of The Dawkins Delusion that I posted at Amazon in
2007 (and have since deleted, as I have deleted all my Amazon reviews).
Only the seond sentence is relevant to your question, but I quote the
whole thing in case it is of interest:

The Dawkins Delusion? - Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

With its deliberate echo of Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" in its
title Alister McGrath's pamphlet tries to demolish the case for atheism
set out in its target. So powerful does its author believe its argument
to be that he boasts how, after a lecture in which he rebutted
Dawkins's arguments, a "very angry young man" accused him of having
"destroyed his faith" in atheism. One must suppose that he marshalled
better evidence in his lecture than he does in the book, because the
story as presented is incredible. No one, unless their faith was
already on the point of collapsing, could lose it on the basis of this
book. The best that one can say of it is that it is short.

In reality, far from providing the claimed point-by-point rebuttal of
the arguments in "The God Delusion", McGrath only rarely addresses
these arguments directly at all, preferring an ad hominem attack on its
author and his supposed motivation. He claims, for example, that
"underlying the agenda of 'The God Delusion' is a pervasive belief that
science has disproved God," but this is fantasy, because not only is
such a belief not pervasive in "The God Delusion," it is not there at
all. Certainly, it contains arguments to the effect that science has
not come up with any evidence to support a belief in the existence of
God, but that is not at all the same as claiming to have disproved God.
Dawkins is nowhere so simple-minded as to fall into the trap of
supposing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and
McGrath's inability to understand the difference undermines any claim
he might have to understand the nature of modern science.

McGrath criticizes his opponents for having failed to study theology,
as if only theologians are allowed opinions about religion. Would he
extend this to other fields, with only politicians allowed opinions
about politics, only biologists allowed opinions about biology, etc.?
Should the readership of his own book be restricted to theologians? If
not, why not? McGrath thinks he has scored a significant point when he
says that "when Dawkins tells us that St Paul wrote the letter to the
Hebrews you realize how bad things are", with an end-note that smugly
adds that "it has been accepted for several centuries that the author
of this letter is not Paul." But what of it? What does it matter if it
was written by St Paul, or by his acolyte Timothy, or by another father
of the early Church? Maybe Dawkins chose in this instance to assume
that the compilers of the King James Bible were telling the truth in
calling it "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." In any
case, who is the "you" that McGrath is addressing in this comment, who
"realizes how bad things are"? If he seriously imagines that most of
his readers, let alone Dawkins's, are so expert in biblical scholarship
that they know who is believed to have written each book then he is
even more out of touch with reality than the rest of his book suggests.
More generally, does he seriously imagine that most (or even many)
Christians base their beliefs on the conclusions of theologians?

This example illustrates the emptiness of the whole case of Christian
apologists such as McGrath, because he wants to pick and choose which
parts of the Church's teaching to believe, so that any example of
horrors, whether from the Old Testament (easy!) or the New (not as
difficult as one might think) can just be dismissed as something that
is no longer part of the teaching of McGrath's particular sort of
Christianity. The fact that vast numbers of fundamentalist Christians
believe every word of the Bible to be literally true, and that the
overwhelming majority of them know much less about academic theology
than Dawkins does, is nowhere addressed in this books. Just as
Christian biologists who want to retain a role for God in evolution
find themselves drawn into postulating a "God of the gaps" to explain
smaller and smaller gaps in knowledge, so McGrath imagines a world in
which Christians believe only in those bits of Christian doctrine that
are not obviously distasteful.

>
>
>
> Joe Cummings
>>
>> Any attempt to comprehend the world creates an explanatory context wherein
>> the explanations make sense. The idea that things can be explained is,
>> itself, an explanatory context, something assumed, a priori. Since there is
>> no way to distinguish the thought from the thinker, we have no objective
>> reality. Human thought is the only reality we can experience.
>>
>> Science provides answers, but to whom?
>>
>> Bill

[Mark Isaak]

> all bumble along pretending that dissent is a tool of the ignorant. [...]

There's an essay, "The Relativity of Wrong" by Isaac Asimov, that you
should take to heart.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/1989/10/the-relativity-of-wrong/

[J. J. Lodder]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

> On 3/31/22 1:57 PM, Bill wrote:
> > Joe Cummings wrote:

[-]

> >> Sometimes I aawake with a start in the small hours of the night,
> >> wondering whether Bill wil actually address the difference between
> >> science and theology. In my experience, Bill always, just always,
> >> refuses to consider the differences between science and religion.
> >>
> >> It's useful for him to do this, because he then has no need to address
> >> any data the science produces, including the overwhelming amount of
> >> data backing up the theory of evolution.
> >>
> >> Joe Cummings
> >
> > Being wrong is no problem for me since I'm fairly sure no one is right. We
> > all bumble along pretending that dissent is a tool of the ignorant. [...]
>
> There's an essay, "The Relativity of Wrong" by Isaac Asimov, that you
> should take to heart.
>
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/1989/10/the-relativity-of-wrong/

All theories are wrong, but some theories are more wrong than others,

Jan

[Bill]

Since I mentioned neither Creationism nor evolution, your responses are
largely irrelevant. You digression has only one purpose: attack a point of
view you can't refute.

My point is that all ideas are human artifacts, products of human
intellectual processes. The obvious assumption is that people believe that
the universe can be fully understood by just thinking about it. This
requires two realities: that which exists and that which people think about
what they think exists. What if we are just passive spectators, observing
without comprehension?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:34:01 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Joe Cummings
<joecu...@hoosegow.com>:

Actually that's not remarkable at all; it's what he's been
saying ever since he started posting here. It's an ideology,
not a reasoned (or even reasonable) position.

--

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

[broger...@gmail.com]

"The obvious assumption is that people believe that the universe can be fully understood by just thinking about it." I don't think that assumption is true, much less obvious. It seems to me that most people here, particularly the ones who disagree with you, think, instead, that the universe can be partially understood by doing careful experiments and observations to try to figure out how it works, and that "just thinking about it" does not get you very far at all.

[Bill]

A reasoned position requires someone doing the reasoning. Since people
rarely agree and only then for mere fractions of a generation, reasoning
becomes muddled over time.

For several thousand years, reasoning included entities and powers and
forces outside of human influence, something akin to supernatural. The
reasoning people applied to these phenomena could have been as rational and
valid as anything reasoned today but with different assumptions.

I still wonder about Plato's forms, seeing a kind of underlying quantum
reality anticipating physical reality as a modern analogue. Plato was not a
scientist so we're required to dismiss his theories whether they work or
not.

The crux of the problem is that modern hubris makes rejection of anything
ancient necessary. We have to tell ourselves that our generation is the
Crown of Creation while denying that Creation ever happened. Perfectly
reasonable of course but not very satisfying. I believe the universe is more
than our anthropomorphic view of it.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:00:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Reasoning, if done correctly, does not "become muddled over
time", although those attempting to reason frequently do.
And as I stated, your attempts to reason merely express an
ideology.

>
>For several thousand years, reasoning included entities and powers and
>forces outside of human influence, something akin to supernatural. The
>reasoning people applied to these phenomena could have been as rational and
>valid as anything reasoned today but with different assumptions.
>
>I still wonder about Plato's forms, seeing a kind of underlying quantum
>reality anticipating physical reality as a modern analogue. Plato was not a
>scientist so we're required to dismiss his theories whether they work or
>not.
>
>The crux of the problem is that modern hubris makes rejection of anything
>ancient necessary. We have to tell ourselves that our generation is the
>Crown of Creation while denying that Creation ever happened. Perfectly
>reasonable of course but not very satisfying. I believe the universe is more
>than our anthropomorphic view of it.
>
>Bill

[Bill]

Maybe. Theory and hypothesis and conjecture only point to what may be real
but are not, in themselves, real. Can we even tell the difference between
what actually exists and what we think exists? It may be that we have
created a completely separate reality, a universe that suits our
understanding or, a universe we believe we can understand.

The objections are based on the certainty that we can be certain. The
certainty has always been there throughout human history, only the details
change.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Completely separate reality? Nope. If our understanding of the world bore no relation to what the world really was, we wouldn't survive an hour.

>
> The objections are based on the certainty that we can be certain. The
> certainty has always been there throughout human history, only the details
> change.

Not sure who you think here is certain that they can be certain. Most everybody on the scientific side, at any rate, is pretty certain that we cannot be certain. But also that there are big differences between different degrees of not being certain and knowing nothing at all.
>
> Bill

[jillery]

Since you asked, yes. To paraphrase Philip K. Dick, "what actually
exists" is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

[Zen Cycle]

Thank you for confirming that facts have no place in your world.

[Mark Isaak]

I don't think *anybody* involved in science is certain that we can be
certain, and that that has been the case at least since Heisenberg. You
have created and are living in a completely separate reality from
everyone else.

[Bill]

That's a rather anti-science view. If merely tagging along with the majority
views is enough to validate those views, why think at all? Since science has
only been significant for maybe 300 years, the 3000 or so preceding years
represent both the majority of history and the majority of people. If a
majority opinion legitimates some position then why bother even discussing
anything?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 11:48:31 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

The disconnect between Mark's statement and your supposed
"response" to it is simply breathtaking.

[Bill]

How should I parse, "You have created and are living in a completely
separate reality from everyone else."? I see it as an admonishment to
conform to a majority view.

Granted that's always been necessary for consensus, even for scientists, but
it also suppresses innovation.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/2/22 9:48 AM, Bill wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/22 3:31 PM, Bill wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> The objections are based on the certainty that we can be certain. The
>>> certainty has always been there throughout human history, only the
>>> details change.
>>
>> I don't think *anybody* involved in science is certain that we can be
>> certain, and that that has been the case at least since Heisenberg. You
>> have created and are living in a completely separate reality from
>> everyone else.
>>
>
> That's a rather anti-science view. If merely tagging along with the majority
> views is enough to validate those views, why think at all? Since science has
> only been significant for maybe 300 years, the 3000 or so preceding years
> represent both the majority of history and the majority of people. If a
> majority opinion legitimates some position then why bother even discussing
> anything?

What the heck does that have to do with anything I wrote?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 17:07:09 -0500, the following appeared

What you perceive is your problem; no one else can fix it
for you. Perhaps you should (re?)read his first sentence,
and consider what it means.

>
>Granted that's always been necessary for consensus, even for scientists, but
>it also suppresses innovation.
>

Ibid.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:12:51 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

>On 4/2/22 9:48 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/1/22 3:31 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The objections are based on the certainty that we can be certain. The
>>>> certainty has always been there throughout human history, only the
>>>> details change.
>>>
>>> I don't think *anybody* involved in science is certain that we can be
>>> certain, and that that has been the case at least since Heisenberg. You
>>> have created and are living in a completely separate reality from
>>> everyone else.
>>>
>>
>> That's a rather anti-science view. If merely tagging along with the majority
>> views is enough to validate those views, why think at all? Since science has
>> only been significant for maybe 300 years, the 3000 or so preceding years
>> represent both the majority of history and the majority of people. If a
>> majority opinion legitimates some position then why bother even discussing
>> anything?
>
>What the heck does that have to do with anything I wrote?
>

Nothing. But give him a gold star for effort;l it's the best
he can do.

[jillery]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 17:07:09 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>How should I parse, "You have created and are living in a completely
>separate reality from everyone else."? I see it as an admonishment to
>conform to a majority view.
>
>Granted that's always been necessary for consensus, even for scientists, but
>it also suppresses innovation.

As you say, there are useful times and places for curmudgeons to
express a contrary POV. The challenge to doing it well requires at a
minimum a reasonably accurate understanding of the majority POV, of
its strengths and weaknesses, and why the majority support it.

You demonstrate none of those skills. Instead, you rely on hyperbole,
strawmen, and baseless allusions, while your arguments are verbose
variations of "I'm right simply because I'm different, and the
majority is wrong simply because they are the majority."

The problem is not in being a curmudgeon. Instead the problem is in
being you. You give honest curmudgeons everywhere a bad name.

[RonO]

On 3/26/2022 9:42 AM, RonO wrote:
> Is what the ID perps call intelligent design, scientific?  The ID perps
> have put up links that seem to be Luskin basically lying about the issue
> that has existed for the last quarter of a century.  Luskin put up an
> article on what ID is and how it should be defended, and it is still
> recommended on the ID scam unit web site, but absolutely no IDiots are
> interested in it.  The IDiots at uncommon descent quoted out of a book
> on science and faith edited by the ID perps instead of discussing what
> Luskin was lying about.
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/
>
>
> Kalk would rather put up Hoyle's tornado through a junkyard fallacy that
> was understood to be bogus before the ID creationist scam had to take
> over from scientific creationism.
>
> Luskin makes similar false claims in his discussion in a video link put
> up by the ID scam unit.
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/debate-is-intelligent-design-advancing/
>
> Luskin puts up his version of science that was never science and no ID
> science has ever existed.  Phillip Johnson finally acknowledged that
> fact after the Dover fiasco, so how can Luskin still be lying about
> something like this?  No IDiots seem to want to defend Luskin's take on
> IDiocy being scientific.
>
> Glenn would rather put up second rate IDiot denial about sickle cell
> anemia mutations than try to use Luskin's lies to support his religious
> beliefs.  Probably the last thing that Glenn wants to believe is that
> his designer is responsible for the mutation that causes most of the
> cases of sickle cell anemia, but Glenn would rather wallow in the denial
> than support his beliefs with the "ID science" that Luskin claims
> exists.  How does that work for IDiots?
>
> What is sad about what Luskin is lying about is that the ID perps
> including Luskin are careful to not call the Top Six IDiotic evidences
> for intelligent design, scientific evidence.  They bend over backwards
> to just call it "evidence" of some unspecified type.  Sewell was even
> corrected when he called the Top Six, scientific evidence.  The Top Six
> used to include IC, so was IC ever any science worth talking about?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
>
> Any IDiots that are left should understand what Luskin is putting out
> and claiming.  There don't seem to be any IDiots left that are willing
> to deal with Luskin's claims in any type of rational and honest manner,
> so what does that mean about the creationist ID scam?
>
> How can this reality ever be considered to be some type of advancement
> for the creationist intelligent design scam?  ID has only been a bait
> and switch scam that creationists have been running on themselves for
> the last 20 years.
>
> Does anything that Luskin is claiming mean that the bait and switch will
> not go down on any group of creationist rubes stupid enough to believe
> Luskins "teach ID" propaganda.  Really, Luskin is one of the authors of
> the teach ID scam material that was put out after the Dover fiasco, and
> has been updated around every 3 years since.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
>
> Luskin is arguing that the science of IDiocy can be taught in the public
> schools, but everyone knows that, that is never going to happen because
> the ID perps have run the bait and switch on any rubes stupid enough to
> try to teach the junk 100% of the time for the last 20 years, and all
> the rubes get from the ID perps is an obfuscation switch scam that
> doesn't mention that ID ever existed.  The Luskin that is participating
> in the creationist bait and switch scam is the Luskin that is making the
> false claims about the existence of ID science.  What does that say
> about the current advances of the creationist ID scam?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

About the saddest thing about Bill's response to the reality above that
he has to exist with is the fact that he became an IDiot because the ID
perps were claiming that they could do the same science as everyone else
and support their creationist religious beliefs. IDiot creationists
like Bill understood that science worked and they wanted to claim that
success for their religious beliefs. Science is only the study of
nature. It is simply the best means that we have figured out to
understand the universe around us. Now, after the utter failure of
IDiocy and scientific creationism Bill is reduced to abject denial of
reality. The creation that real science was used to understand turned
out to be something that Bill did not want to believe in, so like most
IDiot creationists he had to resort to denial of reality.

How did IDiocy creationism degenerate so badly. Bill has made the claim
in the past that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science, but he never put any such science forward for discussion. The
initial claims of the scientific creationists and the ID scam artists
was that they could do the same science as everyone else, so that they
could teach the results in the public schools along with the real
science. Bill supported this creationist ploy for years, maybe decades,
and now what has he resorted to?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/kMyA12L5dLc/m/TeUJqETXBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/kMyA12L5dLc/m/HcdLiSdIBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/kMyA12L5dLc/m/xXOmHdKIBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/kMyA12L5dLc/m/OnlDV3aTBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/kMyA12L5dLc/m/40xisuubBAAJ

How far have IDiot creationists like Bill degenerated since the initial
claims of the scientific creationists? Wallowing in denial seems to be
all that is left for them.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

It is a fact that intelligent people have believed in gods and demons and
UFOs and also a fact that other intelligent people have disagreed. The
beliefs are the facts but not necessarily the "thing" believed. Neither
intelligence nor education make the objects of belief factual.

The facts in my world are what people think about things, not the things
they think about. It's basic to the human universe that facts originate and
are understood by humans; we create facts. We're told that the facts
believed by the majority are the real facts and worthy of uncritical
acceptance. It is, therefore, anti-social to dispute the current orthodoxy.

There is, probably, some overarching fact that explains every other fact but
we only look at picky details. We probably don't even believe that an
overarching fact exists. We create our world with innumerable definitions
but seem to ignore the glue that holds them together.

Bill

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

As always, choosing is the mechanism of creation, how all things originate according to creation theory.

A decision can in principle deal with a zillion possible DNA configurations in one step, by having all the DNA configurations as possiblities in a decision on them.

That is one powerful mechanism, compared to the very limited number of DNA configurations that natural selection can deal with over the lifetime of a generation.

Solely decision can surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable DNA configuration.

Evolution theory has no chance whatsoever of being right. Evolution theory descends into total meaninglessness. That anything whatever happening to an organism is called part of evolution. And even things not happening, like with stasis, is called evolution. It becomes the academic equal of the vacuous Obama phrase, change.

You are historically stupid. The actual fruits of your labor is in the service of the ideological madness of socialism, both nazism and communism, and not in the service of science.

All the evidence points to it that DNA is decided in a sophisticated way, and not decided from many decisions coincedentally coming together. The DNA with it's inherent alternative bases, is obviously suited to being chosen. When you have alternatives, then decisions are the most obvious hypothesis.

Most likely the decision state of the cell is the cyste state, where it is cut of from interaction with the environment. Somehow the cell can still sense if the environment is favorable to replication, even when in the cyste state it is not directly interacting with the environment. And the cyste state is known to be associated with genetic changes.

The DNA system represents a universal information system. That is to say the DNA system has the same mathematical ordering as the universe does, which mathematical ordering is based on efficient steps of mathematical structures away from zero.

That is why Alfred Wallace was right to exempt the human mind from natural selection. The basic human mind is based on universal logic of ordering by zero, and not cobbled together from elements. The human mind is an extension of the DNA system itself, and less a construction of it.

So there is the universal system proper, the dna system, and the human mind system, which are all ordered according to zero based mathematics. As like repeating fractals, but then these systems are applied differently each.

That is the efficient, so default, hypothesis of how it all works.







Op zaterdag 26 maart 2022 om 15:45:46 UTC+1 schreef Ron O:

> about the current advances of the creationist ID scam?
>
> Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:49:43 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Just curious...

Is it a fact that at one time there were no humans?

Is it a fact that at one time neither the Earth not the sun
existed?

Did humans create those facts, as you claim is the case for
all facts ("...facts originate and are understood by humans;
we create facts"), or did we simply observe them?

[Bill]

To whom do facts exist? A fact is a product of the human mind, an idea not a
thing, part of the whole suite of concepts that populate the human
intellectual landscape. Since only humans can have ideas, there is nothing
actually "there" in any physical sense. So, humans create facts by simply
believing they exist.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2022 15:46:38 -0500, the following appeared

Interesting personal definition, and a perfect example of
"philosophy" as distinct from reality. Thanks for playing.

[Pro Plyd]

"intelligent design science" is a contradiction in terms.