The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.

91 views
Skip to first unread message

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 2:45:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.

1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
5) ... at least (1) has observations.
6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of (2), but ...
8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use (2).
9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life.

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 3:10:13 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-7, Dale wrote:
> The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.
>
> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
>
> --
It appears you think you know what life is. Life from life only demonstrates biological life history.
"The Creator" would not necessarily be a "form of" Earthly biological life, nor restricted to being "biological" in any sense.
Your list is not ID. But Ron will enjoy it.

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 3:15:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
correction ...

1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
5) ... at least (1) has observations.
6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
7) An experiment would not provide an observation of (2), because ...
8) ... the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life, (1).

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 3:20:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I think of the Creator as "The Whole" being part biological.

jillery

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 4:10:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:12:10 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 9/10/2021 2:41 PM, Dale wrote:
>> The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
>> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
>> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
>> 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
>> 5) ... at least (1) has observations.
>> 6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
>> 7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of (2), but ....
>> 8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use (2).
>> 9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life.
>>
>
>correction ...
>
>1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
>2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
>3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
>4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
>5) ... at least (1) has observations.


Correction to your correction: Life from Life has not been observed
everywhere. That's an exaggeration at least, and hyperbole. The most
you can correctly say is that where Life is observed, it's observed to
come from Life. There's a difference.


>6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).


Correction to your correction: Your (2) is a truism not in dispute,
and so adds no observation.


>7) An experiment would not provide an observation of (2), because ...
>8) ... the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life, (1).


Correction to your correction: well-designed experiments account for
effects from the experimenter.

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

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 5:20:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 5:35:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 4:05 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:12:10 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/10/2021 2:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> >>> The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
> >>> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
> >>> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
> >>> 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
> >>> 5) ... at least (1) has observations.
> >>> 6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
> >>> 7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of (2), but ....
> >>> 8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use (2).
> >>> 9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life.
> >>>
> >>
> >> correction ...
> >>
> >> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
> >> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
> >> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
> >> 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
> >> 5) ... at least (1) has observations.
> >
> >
> > Correction to your correction: Life from Life has not been observed
> > everywhere. That's an exaggeration at least, and hyperbole. The most
> > you can correctly say is that where Life is observed, it's observed to
> > come from Life. There's a difference.
> >
Life is everywhere, Adolf.

jillery

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 5:55:09 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:32:06 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
Prove you have been everywhere to observe life there, Bozo.

jillery

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 5:55:09 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Two points:


1) Copenhagen Interpretation involves measurement, not the
experimenter.

2) Copenhagen Interpretation has nothing to do with experiments of
life. Stick to your point.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 6:15:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That's only 8. It doesn't rhyme with design like 9 does.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 6:15:09 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Then it is entirely fictional.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 6:15:14 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>Science doesn't do proof.

Ron Dean

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 7:35:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I recall that life was _breathed_ into man and man became a living
being. SO to your point life only from life.

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 9:20:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Reminds me of The Book of Genesis

Dale

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 9:20:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I thought about that too :)

Dexter

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 10:00:09 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean wrote:

> On 9/10/21 2:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> > The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.
> >
> > 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
> > 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
> > 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
> > 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
> > 5) ... at least (1) has observations.
> > 6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
> > 7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of
> > (2), but ... 8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use
> > (2). 9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life
> > creating Life.
> >
> I recall that life was breathed into man and man became a
> living being. SO to your point life only from life.

As I recall Santa Claus comes down the chimney every winter.
What else ya got, homer?

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2021, 11:25:08 PMSep 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
More than you got.

jillery

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:10:09 AMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Neither do you, but then, you're no scientist.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:55:08 AMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Unless robots are doing it.

Alien robots from outer space.

> Reminds me of The Book of Genesis

Some of that, God does by hand, and some of it,
he just says the magic words. "Let there be,"
and, bang, there is. (It may not sound like "bang".)

And there are oversights like creating plants that
seek the sun before creating the sun - although there
is daylight, never mind how - and forgetting to create
plants that live in water. And of course the contradiction
of creating Adam after all the other animals, or before.
And apparently thinking that Adam would like wasps.
And tapeworms.

Dale

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 9:20:08 AMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 9/10/2021 6:14 PM, Glenn wrote:
add divine :)

RonO

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 10:10:09 AMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 9/10/2021 1:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.

My guess is that Dale isn't as mentally incompetent as his posts portray
him to be. It is just an excuse to disrupt discussion that he doesn't
want to deal with in an honest and straight forward manner.

>
> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.

This actually has about nothing in terms of support for the creationist
intelligent design scam as it exists today. It is true that every
instance where we have made observations #1 is true, and it has resulted
in Cell theory, and biological evolution. Most of the time IDiots are
denigrating this observation because they can't deal with what it means
in terms of the current diversity of life on earth.

It is true that we have not observed every possible instance, but that
biology has worked this way since the first lifeform existed is inferred
from what observations we have made.

#1 is much better evidence for biological evolution than it is for
IDiocy, and is one of the reasons why we have ID perps like Behe and
Denton who think that biological evolution was used to design life on
earth. Denton claims that no interference was needed, but Behe claims
that his designer tweeked things every once in a while.

> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.

This also is no support for intelligent design creationism. The only
support that it lends is that their intelligent designer might still
exist in the gaps in our knowledge. This is based on denial and is not
positive evidence for anything. MarkE found out that he didn't want to
believe in the intelligent designer that would fit into the abiogenesis
gap that he was creating. That is true for the majority of IDiots in
existence today. They do not want to believe in the designer that would
have created life on the earth under conditions that would have existed
3.8 billion years ago.

> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.

This statement is false. If anyone tells you that they know what the
creationist Creator is they are lying to you. There have been zero
credible observations of such a Creator, and definitely no reproducible
observations that have been made to make any such claim. Since the
statement is false in terms of what we understand about the Creator it
is likely less of any type of support for IDiocy than the first two for
which their support of IDiocy is about zero.

> 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
> 5) ... at least (1) has observations.

Why divide these into two? These two do not support intelligent design
creationism. The beginning of the observable universe was not observed,
but inferred from the observations that we can make. The observations
that have been made have never supported IDiocy. The ID perps claimed
otherwise, but then they started running the bait and switch 20 years
ago, were found to be lying in the court room of the Dover case, and
Johnson admitted that they didn't have what they claimed after that
loss. The basis for the creationist ID scam was that IDiots could do
the same science as everyone else and support the existence of their
creator, but they found out that they didn't want to do the science and
make the observations because the evidence indicated that they didn't
want to know the answers that they would get. No ID science ever got
done. No observations were ever made to test their God hypothesis.
Some of them claimed that junk like irreducible complexity could be
scientifically tested, but no such testing was ever attempted.

These two are a big fat zero for IDiocy.

> 6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).

It had to happen is a statement of fact. This statement of fact is
neutral, and lying to yourself about it does not support IDiocy. No
matter if life formed under natural conditions or was created
abiogenesis had to have occurred because life exists and left evidence
of its existence stretching back billions of years. As stupid as it may
be, intelligence involved abiogenesis is still abiogenesis. There is no
evidence that life could have existed before the Big Bang had stabilized
enough to form atoms, stars and planets.

> 7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of (2), but ...

No one cares. Even if we are eventually able to create life in the lab,
that doesn't mean that it is the way that life arose on this planet.
Abiogenesis is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. It may never
amount to anything in terms of what actually happened. All they can
expect to figure out is the most likely scenario, and everyone should
know that the most likely isn't always the one that actually happens.
No matter how unlikely something is, if it happens, it happens.

This lends about zero support for IDiocy. Denial is just denial. It
may make you feel better about your option, but it is still just denial.

> 8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use (2).

News flash for the mentally incompetent: How long has theistic
evolution been an option among creationist?

This lends about zero support for IDiocy. Denial is just Denial. What
you need is something like IC that your designer is supposed to have
done. The sad thing is that IC was proposed, but it turned out that the
vast majority of IDiots didn't want to demonstrate that their designer
was involved in Behe's IC systems because they didn't want to know what
any such designer did over a billion years ago to design the flagellum
in bacteria, and they didn't want to know what their designer did around
half a billion years ago to design the blood clotting and adaptive
immune system in vertebrates.

God-of-the-Gaps stupidity is just stupidity. It isn't any valid
evidence for IDiocy.

> 9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life.
>

This is not evidence for IDiocy. If we manage to do it, all it means is
that it is possible that life can be created from non living materials.

The Reason To Believe IDiots are claiming that creation of lifeforms is
still going on. They claim that examples like anolis lizards evolving
new traits on various islands is recurrent creation. What they need to
do is set up experiments to try to detect this recurrent creation.
Hermetically sealed containers, might trap critters that are being
popped into existence by the creator, but no one is trying to test the
claims, mainly because they are so tragically lame claims that they
aren't worth testing.

This is about zero evidence for IDiocy. It did not make the Top Six put
out by the ID perps, so it is worse than the junk that you are running
from and can't deal with. The Top Six are just the same god-of-the-gaps
stupidity that the scientific creationist came up with and failed as
science over 30 years ago. God-of-the-gaps denial is just denial and
doesn't support much of anything.

The Top Six has degenerated over the years in terms of what the ID perps
have dropped out of the Top Six, but it is stil just as tragically lame
as your top 9 above.

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

Ron Okimoto

Dale

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 1:10:08 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Thorough response. Read it all. Will respond in a while.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 1:20:08 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You want to be insulted repeatedly by an insane person?

RonO

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 2:15:08 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The projection in the face of having no cogent counters can't even be
lost on Dale.

Ron Okimoto

Glenn

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:10:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Better lock your doors at night, Dale might come by and do bad things to you.

RonO

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:30:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you
really afraid that Dale is capable of doing bad things? Projecting
these insane fears onto someone else is not healthy. Not all IDiots
want to get you to do shameful things, only the ones that you keep going
back to for second rate junk. The ID perps rely on the dishonesty and
stupidity of anyone that would support their efforts. You could
demonstrate otherwise, but this type of thing is what you do instead?

Ron Okimoto

Glenn

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 3:50:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You need professional help.

RonO

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 4:30:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Projection should get to you. Shouldn't you take the advice that you
are giving to yourself? Really, who is having the issues that you keep
projecting onto someone else? It may be time to do something about that.

Are you still willfully ignorant about what Behe told you about whale
evolution? Are you going to lie about it again in the future?

Ron Okimoto

Dale

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 5:15:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
He put in a lot of effort. The least I can do is respond.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 6:30:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Behe never said what you claim he said, that whales evolved by Darwinian devolution, with no help from an Intelligent Designer.
It is what you want to believe and make others believe. You ignore what he does actually say.
You're beyond consciously lying, you've gone so far off the delusion scale you are insane.

RonO

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 10:20:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You can keep lying to yourself, but that doesn't change reality. This
isn't anything that you should lie to yourself about for years. It is
sad that you were willfully ignorant about Behe's believe that
biological evolution is a fact of nature, but that doesn't mean that you
can stay willfully ignorant about your own willful dishonesty. The
title of the book is Darwin Devolves. Behe denigrates the type of
evolution that whales represent. He certainly is not claiming that his
designer did it. Do you think that Behe is claiming that his designer is
responsible for such stupid evolution? You should likely try to
understand the parts of the article that I quoted. Behe is claiming
that it is the type of evolution expected. He isn't claiming anything
about design. Really, Glenn you shouldn't lie to yourself about this
forever because it will not change the reality that you were willfully
ignorant about Behe's understanding about biological evolution being a
fact of nature for decades. Behe only claims that his designer tweeked
the process every once in a while, but he doesn't make any tweeking
claims for whales. In fact, he denigrates the design.

Ron Okimoto

Glenn

unread,
Sep 11, 2021, 10:40:09 PMSep 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That's a fairy tale, Ron.

RonO

unread,
Sep 12, 2021, 8:20:09 AMSep 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Just keep lying to yourself, but what will it do for you. Behe will
have done just what he did, and you will just be in denial.

Ron Okimoto

youngbl...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 7:55:10 PMSep 14
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> It is what you want to believe and make others believe.ou ignore what he does actually say.
> You're beyond consciously lying, you've gone so far off the delusion scale you are insane.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996) Edit
... I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no reason to doubt it. ... I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mecm - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.
page 5

https://normangeisler.com/a-review-of-michael-behes-the-edge-of-evolution/
Theistic Evolution

Creationists who missed the fine print in Behe’s first book, acknowledging that he held an overall evolutionary common ancestry thesis, will be disappointed with The Edge of Evolution. For here Behe makes it clear that he is a theistic evolutionist (166, 182, 232). He says: “I’ll show some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of Darwin’s theory–common descent–is correct” (65). He adds, “when two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling …. This sort of evidence he sees in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees” (70-71). “More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from …a broken hemoglobin gene” which they share (71). Creationists, however, have shown that a common Creator explains this same data as a result of intelligent design (see Fazele Rana and High Ross, Who Was Adam?, 2005, Chapter 14).

RonO

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 7:20:10 AMSep 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn still wants to remain willfully ignorant about Behe's
understanding that biological evolution is a fact of nature. He can't
accept that Behe's recent IDiot arguments have been as lame as they are.
When Behe was crowing about the Edge of Evolution he was pointing out
what real scientists had discovered and claiming that, yes, it was
possible to have occurred by natural mechanisms, but that was the limit
for what natural evolution could do. One of the examples he put up was
Thornton's work on steroid receptors. They had found that two neutral
mutations had to occur together to produce the change in function that
had evolved. Behe's lame argument was that, what they had found was the
limit for what could be expected and that we should never see 3 neutral
mutations being required to produce a change in function. Behe was
actually glad that they hadn't confirmed his stupid notion about IC
systems requiring a certain order and arrangement of mutations. All
that scientists have discovered are things that Behe acknowledges are
expected to be found. For Glenn's latest denial Behe is acknowledging
that whale evolution did occur, but it was evolution by breaking things.
He denigrates the type of evolution, but he understands that, that is
what happened. Behe is calling the evolution devolution, but it is
still the evolution that happened. Behe didn't find intelligent design
in whale evolution. He only denigrates the type of evolution that he
claims that it is.

So science hasn't found what Behe needs to confirm the existence of
Behe's IC systems. All science has found are things that Behe claims
could have happened by natural processes, but isn't the type of
evolution Behe thinks that the designer was involved in.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages