Denton and the bogosity of the big tent

[RonO]

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/denton-and-intelligent-designs-big-tent/

Glenn put this link up somewhere, and Nyikos has been quoting out of it
claiming that Denton isn't a creationists, but the quotes use wiggle
wording that should tell anyone that Denton is a creationist that
believes in a creator god, he just qualifies his beliefs about it, and
apparently he still fits into the ID Perp's "Big Tent" political ploy.

QUOTE:
A Sly Twinkle
Asked about ID and religion, Denton responds with a sly twinkle, “I’m on
the edge of skepticism about theism myself.” He goes on, “As for your
hint that you can only be an intelligent design [proponent] if you have
some a priori theological or religious view, I disagree with that
entirely because it doesn’t apply to me. Most of my life I have been
pretty agnostic and would only describe myself perhaps as a backsliding
Christian, though I’m not in any sense a fervent believer in a God, or
the Christian God.” He describes his next big book, a magnum opus
surveying the elements of fine-tuning in nature. Denton indicates how
“that very strongly suggests there’s some intelligence behind the
universe,” adding that “the overall picture of the cosmos looks to me as
if it was fabricated for life, even for beings of our physiology and
biology.” And yet he’s not a conventional theist. I have a lot of
sympathy for this modest, minimalist, relaxed perspective.
END QUOTE:

Denton is obviously using wiggle words to lie about his "a priori"
religious views. It is obvious that he claims to at least have once
been a Christian, but perhaps a backsliding one (may not have backslid
enough to actually be a backsliding Christian), my guess is that he was
still attending church services when he wrote his first book. He may
still be attending church services. It is likely why he was referred to
as Anglican by creationists when he published his first book.

Denton does not claim to be an agnostic in the quote above. He likely
has some weird notion of what an agnostic is. He obviously has his own
creationist beliefs, he just seems to be agnostic about other people's
creationist beliefs so that he can sell them his ID scam books. What is
"pretty agnostic"?

This quote just means that you do not have to be a fervent Christian
believer to be part of the ID creationist scam. What the above quote
does not do is demonstrate that Denton is not an IDiot type creationist.
He obviously believes in an intelligent designer that likely is his
god, but he isn't a fundy. How Nyikos could misinterpret this piece of
propaganda is crazy. The ID perps are claiming that Denton is part of
the "Big Tent". What are all the other members of the IDiot Big Tent?

Anyone can take this for whatever they want, but Denton is acknowledging
that he is a theist, but maybe on the edge, and that he was and is a
Christian believer, but just was not a "fervent" believer.

Above Denton is only claiming to be "pretty" agnostic. When Denton's
first book came out the creationist using it were claiming that he was
an Anglican. That is what I recall. It was before I started reading TO
and the creationists were writing about Denton's clap trap in the
letters to the editor of the Student paper. According to Wiki Denton,
at that time, claimed to be an agnostic, but now he is just "pretty
agnostic" and not a "fervent believer in a God, or the Christian God."

When Denton published his second book it got a bad review from the other
ID perps and Denton quit the ID scam for a few years. The other ID perps
did not like Denton's view of his designer, the fact that Denton had
admitted in the forward that biological evolution was a fact of nature,
and that his book was not an argument against biological evolution. My
guess is that Denton's first anti evolution creationist book is likely
still his best seller.

Denton did come back to become an ID perp and sell more books. When he
publish his third book Moran had an essay up on his blog about Denton
defending his work, and presenting his IDiot model that the creator
(intelligent designer) got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all
unfolded as we have it today. Someone created a TO thread linking to
Moran's blog on the subject. Such views are why Denton has been
considered to be a Deist by many. I cannot recall anyone contesting
Denton's views, nor Moran's quotes on the subject at that time, so why
would IDiots like Nyikos deny what Denton is today?

In the linked to piece Denton does not deny believing in his creator as
an intelligent designer. That is why Big Tent is in the title of the
propaganda piece. The Big Tent is supposed to encompass all types of
creationists from YEC fundies to theistic evolutionists tweekers like
Behe. The ID perps are claiming that the Big Tent includes IDiots like
Denton. This contradicts the multiple propaganda pieces from the same
creationist news site claiming that Denton type theistic evolutionists
are not welcome in the Big Tent, and that such thesitic evolution is bad
theology. Denton is probably exactly the type of theistic evolutionists
that the ID perps want to exclude. Behe is a theistic evolutionist
tweeker, and likely still acceptable. My guess is that Denton has only
hung around the Discovery Institute this second time for the money. He
really isn't wanted, and his deistic notions of his intelligent designer
isn't welcome in the Big Tent.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

QUOTE:
Religion
Religious creationists have claimed that Denton is 'an agnostic that has
no religious beliefs and that he is a non-creationist.[4][5] However in
his book Natures Destiny he does propose that there is a supernatural
intelligence that started the cosmos which has directed evolution, and
some reviewers still believe he is a theist.[6] Denton has been
described as an intelligent design advocate by most scientists.

Even though Denton believes evolution is directed and designed, he
denies vitalism or the belief in any metaphysical force is directing
evolution. According to Denton it was directed in a one-off event.
Because of this he has been called a deist by some writers.[7][8] Other
writers have described Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis as a
creationist book and that Denton is advocating a theological view of
science.[9]
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I guess you guess he guesses they guess, and big tents very bad. Got it, thanks.

[RonO]

Glenn, why were you ignorant of the fact that Behe was a theistic
evolutionist? Do you know what a direct answer would be in Denton's
case? Did he give one? They even claim his answer came with a "Sly
twinkle". What do you get from the wiki entry? Why do you want to lie
about this issue? Even you likely want Denton to be a creationist. Why
would you want to be lied to by a non believer? If Denton was a non
believer wouldn't that be worse for the bait and switch ID creationist
scam? The above quote is like claiming that Denton is sort of an
agnostic while winking at the guy he isn't deceiving very well.

What do you think Denton means when he claims that his god got the ball
rolling with the big bang and it all unfolded. When he talks about
intelligent designers you know that he is talking about his Christian
God that he may have backslid away from, but obviously it was an
incomplete backslide. Denton did not deny those past claims in what
they quoted from him. The whole charade was to claim Denton as a member
of the Big Tent. What are all the other members of the ID perp's Big Tent?

The fact that you have to lie to yourself about this issue at this late
date demonstrates how dishonest the ID perps including Denton have been
about this issue for decades.

Behe keeps telling the rubes every once in a while that biological
evolution is a fact of nature, but he doesn't do it very effectively
does he? You could remain willfully ignorant of that simple fact for
decades. You can't really blame Behe for you being wrong about it.
Your own willful ignorance and dishonesty was the major factor in you
not knowing the facts of life. Behe was known to be a theistic
evolutionist before you became an IDiot. That is how bad your willful
ignorance has been on that issue.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Like I said before, cook your chicken well, folks.

[RonO]

Why were you ignorant of the fact that Behe was a theistic evolutionist?
It wasn't because you are chicken, and you can't blame your mother for
under cooking your chicken dinner.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You know stuff, huh!

[RonO]

You are willfully ignorant, and a liar.

What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Ok, so you don't know stuff.

[Bill]

Of all the people you've mentioned here, none speaks for me.
How can that be? The general consensus appears to be that
every thought about everything worth thinking about has been
neatly formulated into a School of Thought, something
regular and regulated.

Whatever thought you may have belongs in some preexisting
category. That's the kind of thing that makes memorizing
names more important than understanding what the name
represents. All of knowledge is reduced to a list of
mnemonics. What's the point of intelligence if all we're
going to do with it is compile lists?

Bill

[RonO]

Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:

What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?

END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

That's a matter of opinion, but it can be pathological as you exhibit below.

[RonO]

Is it a good thing to think that you are out there all by yourself? You
could finally put up the names of the real ID scientists that have the
real ID science so that we might understand what your position is. How
long ago did you make that claim, and why did you never put up any names
to check out? As far as I can tell you just believe that this reality
doesn't exist. You probably hope that you never made that claim in this
reality. Behe and Denton do not speak for a lot of people. There are
just a lot of rubes to con out there. How long were you an IDiot?

You could show us what your reality looks like instead.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Does it really make you feel better to snip and run?

REPOST of REPOST:

Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

This is a matter about how you feel, not I.

>
>
> You and Nyikos should get together

We pretty much are with regard to you and your claims, and have been for years.

[Bill]

My reality changes, often. When I believe I know something,
some new information leaks in and I have to re-think
everything. All that I've learned over the years is open to
question, nothing is certain, progress toward understanding
is an illusion.

I don't mind. Those who strut about flaunting their mastery
of the latest ideas, change as often as I do but prefer to
pretend that they've got it all figured out, and always
have.

Bill

[RonO]

Reality doesn't change it is your misperception of reality that changes.
Most people are able to learn something and adjust to what reality
actually is instead of retreating to denial.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

So why not help your asshole buddy out?

REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.

END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You're not my buddy, you're a talk.origins nut and you're beyond help. But for comparison:

"Denton has published his work in journals such as Nature, Biochemical Journal, Nature Genetics, BioSystems, Human Genetics, Clinical Genetics, the Journal of Theoretical Biology, and Biology and Philosophy. He has given lectures at major universities throughout the world. His current research focuses on exploring the role and limitation of genes in the generation of cell form, particularly retinal cells and red blood cells and examining the challenge posed to Darwinian functionalism by the apparently non adaptive ground plans or types which underlie much of the adaptive complexity of life. He rejects the metaphysical basis of the Darwinian framework, “specifically the assumptions that living organisms are nothing more than machines, and that all properties of organisms have adaptive significance.”

https://privilegedspecies.com/biography/

[RonO]

REPOST of REPOST etc.

REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.

END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

> Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy.

Yep, he is yours. Just don't think you are his.

[RonO]

REPOST ad infinitum:

REPOST of REPOST etc.
REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.
END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.

END REPOST ad infinitum

Projection is such a stupid defense mechanism. You have to understand
what you are in order to project the stupidity on to someone else.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Whatever you say.

[RonO]

REPOST ad infinitum2:

REPOST ad infinitum:
REPOST of REPOST etc.
REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.
END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.
END REPOST ad infinitum

Projection is such a stupid defense mechanism. You have to understand
what you are in order to project the stupidity on to someone else.

END REPOST ad infinitum2:

Snipping and running and misdirection is not any way to resolve what you
are running from.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

But who is counting?

[RonO]

REPOST ad infinitum3

REPOST ad infinitum2:
REPOST ad infinitum:
REPOST of REPOST etc.
REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.
END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.
END REPOST ad infinitum

Projection is such a stupid defense mechanism. You have to understand
what you are in order to project the stupidity on to someone else.
END REPOST ad infinitum2:

Snipping and running and misdirection is not any way to resolve what you
are running from.

END REPOST ad infinitum3

You have been counting unless you are too badly out of it to keep track
of how many times you can snip and run.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

> You have been counting unless you are too badly out of it to keep track
> of how many times you can snip and run.
>

Did you buy that reasoning at Walmart?

[RonO]

REPOST ad infinitum4:

REPOST ad infinitum3
REPOST ad infinitum2:
REPOST ad infinitum:
REPOST of REPOST etc.
REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.
END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.
END REPOST ad infinitum

Projection is such a stupid defense mechanism. You have to understand
what you are in order to project the stupidity on to someone else.
END REPOST ad infinitum2:

Snipping and running and misdirection is not any way to resolve what you
are running from.
END REPOST ad infinitum3

You have been counting unless you are too badly out of it to keep track
of how many times you can snip and run.

END REPOST ad infinitum4

Glenn likely can't count in his present condition.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Esque]

I've watched this NG for awhile. But the question is: what is a
single fact. even one single fact, that _uniquely_ proves evolution
beyond doubt?

--
talk origins

[Glenn]

> Glenn likely can't count in his present condition.
>

I count on you.

[RonO]

Look at the post that you are responding to. Do you really expect to
get any type of competent answer out of Glenn?

Denton, the ID perp under discussion in this thread claims that
biological evolution is a fact of nature. He just thinks that his god
got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and everything unfolded as we see
it today. He claims that his god needed to set up the Big Bang so that
all of this would happen. Biological evolution of life on earth would
not have happened if Denton's god did not set up everything at the
beginning so that it could happen. Denton isn't a tweeker like Behe.
Denton believes that his god didn't have to do anything after the Big
Bang. Behe is another ID perp that understands that biological
evolution is a fact of nature, but he claims that his god tweeks things
every once in a while. Behe doesn't see evidence of tweeking for the
last several hundred million years of the evolution of life on earth, so
he has put up the option that his designer might be dead. Denton and
Behe are both molecular biologists. Denton did some genome mapping and
Behe worked with RNA. They both understand that the molecular evidence
cannot be denied, and would tell any rational fair minded person that
biological evolution is a fact of nature.

How much biochemistry do you understand? Molecular biology is still
used by the ID perps and other anti evolution types to fool the
creationist rubes because the rubes do not understand how they are being
lied to. Such rubes will not understand anything that I could tell them
anymore than they understand what the ID perps and other anti evolution
creationists tell them.

Stick around and you might learn something. If you observe Glenn he
obviously doesn't want to learn much at all, and it is a lost cause to
ask him any such question.

Why should there be a single fact that "proves" evolution beyond doubt?

Evolutionary biology is such a well established field of study that the
amount of denial needed to counter it is crazy. Look at the bait and
switch that is going down as the latest creationist political scam to
counter biological evolution in the public schools. The Scam artists at
the Discovery Institute sell the creationist rubes the lie that they
have some type of scientific theory of intelligent design/creationism to
teach in the public schools, but when the creationist rubes want to
teach the nonexistant science the ID perps run the bait and switch. The
switch scam is just an obfuscation scam that the creationists may bend
over and take from the ID perps, but they don't like it. The
creationist rubes do not want to teach anything about biological
evolution in the public schools and they definitely do not want to teach
the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific theory. Every time the
creationist rubes have bent over for the switch scam, when they try to
implement it they screw up and want to teach ID/creationism, and the
switch scam is not supposed to have anything to do with ID/creationism.

Really, you can look it up at the Discovery Institute. The ID perps
want to teach more about biological evolution (they lie a lot), and that
lie doesn't go over very well with the creationist rubes.

https://www.discovery.org/id/

They may sell the rubes intelligent design.
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

but this is all any creationist rube has gotten since the bait and
switch started in 2002.

https://www.discovery.org/a/9851/

When the Texas creationist rubes tried to implement this policy in 2013
they stupidly put intelligent design stupidity in the textbook
supplements that they had written so that the teacher would have some
idea of what they wanted them to teach. The ID perps had to run the
bait and switch on the rubes again and tell them that the switch scam
had nothing to do with intelligent design. None of the creationist
rubes wanted their kids to learn more about biological evolution, and
natural selection. They tried to drop those subjects out of the science
standards in Texas, but the creationist rubes settled for the switch
scam, and then had to have the bait and switch run on them again by the
guys that sold them the intelligent design claptrap.

What this all means is that biological evolution is well supported
science, and any creationist alternative has never met that level of
certainty. No matter how bad you think the evidence for biological
evolution is, the evidence for the creationist alternatives is worse.
Even the guys scamming the creationist rubes about it, understand that
or they would not be running a bait and switch scam like selling
intelligent design, but all any creationist rube gets is a bogus
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID nor creationism ever
existed.

You may be better off putting together all the things that make you
think that your alternative is worth discussing, and then try to imagine
what science has that makes what you have less than adequate. Really,
whatever any one has come up with on this planet for centuries that
supports the anti evolution creationists, is so much worse than what
science has that even the guys selling the junk will not put it forward
when they need to support their religious beliefs. That is how good the
evidence for biological evolution is.

The bait and switch is a creationist scam that the anti evolution
creationists are running on themselves. The creationist rubes would
rather endure the bait and switch scam instead of try to support their
alternative with the available evidence.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

REPOST ad infinitum5

REPOST ad infinitum4:
REPOST ad infinitum3
REPOST ad infinitum2:
REPOST ad infinitum:
REPOST of REPOST etc.
REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST of REPOST:
Denial is stupid.

REPOST what you Snipped out:
What was that lie about me not being able to back up my claims about the
ID perps? You told that lie twice. Did it make you feel any better the
second time you lied about it?
END REPOST:

Does it may you feel better to run after you get caught lying?

END REPOST of REPOST:

You and Nyikos should get together and compare notes on snipping and
running. Nyikos may have some neat trick to delude himself into
thinking that he is doing something that isn't stupid and dishonest.
END REPOST of REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running has to get old at some point.
END REPOST of REPOST etc.

Denton isn't even close to being your asshole buddy. You and Nyikos
should probably try to recruit more lying assholes, but my guess is that
Denton wouldn't want to associate with you two.

The strange thing about this Biography is that they do not define
Darwinism, so you don't know what they are talking about. You should
try to find out what their definition of Darwinism is and then explain
what those parts of the Biography mean.

Darwinism isn't biological evolution because Denton has no problem with
Biological evolultion.
END REPOST ad infinitum

Projection is such a stupid defense mechanism. You have to understand
what you are in order to project the stupidity on to someone else.
END REPOST ad infinitum2:

Snipping and running and misdirection is not any way to resolve what you
are running from.
END REPOST ad infinitum3

You have been counting unless you are too badly out of it to keep track
of how many times you can snip and run.

END REPOST ad infinitum4

Glenn likely can't count in his present condition.

END REPOST ad infinitum5

Why keep snipping and lying? Running isn't counting on anything.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 21:27:29 -0400, Bill Esque <"Bill
Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've watched this NG for awhile. But the question is: what is a
>single fact. even one single fact, that _uniquely_ proves evolution
>beyond doubt?

Why do you even ask that question? My understanding is, there are
zero scientific theoried based on a single fact, ToE included.

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

[Glenn]

You don't know what competent means.

[Öö Tiib]

The fact that such biological populations whose heritable
characteristics do not change over successive generations haven't
been found to exist.

[RonO]

This is what a competent answer is. Compare it to yours. You had to
snip it out and run from it, so you understand at some level how badly
off you are.

REPOST:

Look at the post that you are responding to. Do you really expect to
get any type of competent answer out of Glenn?

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/19/20 6:27 PM, Bill Esque wrote:
>> [...]

> I've watched this NG for awhile. But the question is: what is a
> single fact. even one single fact, that _uniquely_ proves evolution
> beyond doubt?

Many plants, animals, microorganisms, and viruses have been seen to evolve.

Now, you can argue that that is not a "single" fact, and you can rightly
say that it is not unique (there are plenty other types of evidence
which prove evidence beyond doubt), but in doing so, you are not arguing
evolution, but the relevance of how you phrased your question.

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

[Glenn]

Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Evolutionary theory can not be "proven" or anything like "beyond doubt". The facts of a certain definition of evolution (not the theory) uniquely prove those facts, but that claim would be a simple tautology. Were evolution a law then perhaps one single fact may suffice to claim "proof", although that would be a weird way to explain a law.

[Bill Esque]

I've observed that proof of creation or proof of God's existence is
demanded in some of the cites I participated in. So. it seems
fair to ask for proof of evolution. If evolution is factual, then
there should be numerous proofs of evolution beyond any doubt.

Of course, I do not claim to have proof of anything pertaining to
creation or God. But I do believe there was something out there
that started the universe and life billions of years in the past.
Something from nothing seems irrational to me. Call it first cause
the beginning or an act of deity. I've seen nothing proven to the
contrary.


--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:35:41 -0400, Bill Esque <"Bill
Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I've watched this NG for awhile. But the question is: what is a
>>> single fact. even one single fact, that _uniquely_ proves evolution
>>> beyond doubt?
>>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Evolutionary theory can not be "proven" or anything like "beyond doubt". The facts of a certain definition of evolution (not the theory) uniquely prove those facts, but that claim would be a simple tautology. Were evolution a law then perhaps one single fact may suffice to claim "proof", although that would be a weird way to explain a law.
>>
>I've observed that proof of creation or proof of God's existence is
>demanded in some of the cites I participated in. So. it seems
>fair to ask for proof of evolution. If evolution is factual, then
>there should be numerous proofs of evolution beyond any doubt.
>
>Of course, I do not claim to have proof of anything pertaining to
>creation or God. But I do believe there was something out there
>that started the universe and life billions of years in the past.
>Something from nothing seems irrational to me. Call it first cause
>the beginning or an act of deity. I've seen nothing proven to the
>contrary.

I agree, when others demand proof from you, you are entitled to demand
equivalent from them.

However you explicitly asked for a single fact which _uniquely proves
evolution beyond doubt. That's more stringent than what you described
others demanded from you.

Finally, since you say something from nothing seems irrational to you,
how do you rationalize an uncreated Creator?

[Bill Esque]

Actually, in looking back I mistakenly took the writing of another
poster to be Glenn. I saw him as defender of evolution. I need to
apologize for the mistake.

>
> Denton, the ID perp under discussion in this thread claims that
> biological evolution is a fact of nature.  He just thinks that his god
> got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and everything unfolded as we see
> it today.  He claims that his god needed to set up the Big Bang so that
> all of this would happen.  Biological evolution of life on earth would
> not have happened if Denton's god did not set up everything at the
> beginning so that it could happen.  Denton isn't a tweeker like Behe.
> Denton believes that his god didn't have to do anything after the Big
> Bang.  Behe is another ID perp that understands that biological
> evolution is a fact of nature, but he claims that his god tweeks things
> every once in a while.  Behe doesn't see evidence of tweeking for the
> last several hundred million years of the evolution of life on earth, so
> he has put up the option that his designer might be dead.  Denton and
> Behe are both molecular biologists.  Denton did some genome mapping and
> Behe worked with RNA.  They both understand that the molecular evidence
> cannot be denied, and would tell any rational fair minded person that
> biological evolution is a fact of nature.
>

Both Denton and Behe, as you pointed out understand molecular biology
and Behe is a professor; Denton is a Physician. Can your credentials
outweigh the credentials of these two men?

I do not believe this has anything to do with evolution or its proof.

>
> How much biochemistry do you understand?  Molecular biology is still
> used by the ID perps and other anti evolution types to fool the
> creationist rubes because the rubes do not understand how they are being
> lied to.  Such rubes will not understand anything that I could tell them
> anymore than they understand what the ID perps and other anti evolution
> creationists tell them.
>

I began my university studies in pre-med, but changed in my jr. year.
So, I know a little something having taken years of biology, physiology
through organisimal biology and o.b. labs, organic chemistry etc.

>
> Stick around and you might learn something.  If you observe Glenn he
> obviously doesn't want to learn much at all, and it is a lost cause to
> ask him any such question.
>
> Why should there be a single fact that "proves" evolution beyond doubt?
>

I wasn't requesting many proofs; just one. But then if it would be
more practical to ask for 10 proofs that are unique to evolution, then
please provide these ten proofs.

Perhaps, I missed it, but no where in your post did I note any attempt
at proving evolution. I do not find denouncing creationist or IDist by
calling them "ID perps", "scam artist", "creationist rubes", "using bate
and switch scams" as rational or legitimate arguments again Denton Behe
or other people with whom you disagree. Neither dies this constitute any
proof of evolution. In my view it points out your biases and hatred
towards people you detest.

[Ernest Major]

Asking for a single fact that uniquely proves evolution beyond doubt is
a strange way to ask for proof of evolution.

There is the minor point that omphalism, simulationism, occasionalism
and solipism are not subject to evidential disproof. We can reject them
as being epistemologically sterile, but we can't disprove them - we can
only assume that the world is real.

There is the problem with the interpretation of the word proof. Under
some interpretations asking for proof of a scientific theory is a
category error. But perhaps by proof you meant convincing evidence.

But the major point is scientific theories are not based on single
facts. They are based on bodies of evidence. In the case of evolution
the factuality of universal common descent of known life on earth with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
is supported by literally mountains of evidence and billions of
observations.

In the middle 19th century Darwin mustered sufficient evidence to
convince the great majority of biologists of the factuality of common
descent and transformationism. (It took several decades for the
importance of natural selection to command the same degree of
acceptance.) More evidence has been piling up ever since.

>
> Of course, I do not claim to have proof of anything pertaining to
> creation or God. But I do believe there was something out there
> that started the universe and life billions of years in the past.
> Something from nothing seems irrational to me. Call it first cause
> the beginning or an act of deity. I've seen nothing proven to the
> contrary.
>

Did you mean to contrast the above with evolution? It doesn't seem in
anyway relevant to the factuality of evolution. Cosmogenesis and
abiogenesis are different topics.

There are several problems with the Cosmological Argument. The final one
is that even if it was valid, it doesn't get you to God, only to a First
Cause with almost completely unknown properties.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill Rogers]

There isn't one. There are many overlapping kinds of evidence that make evolution the current best explanation of the history and diversity of life. If you were interested, there are many places you can read about all that evidence.

Here are a couple of links to general summaries of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Human_Biology/Book%3A_Human_Biology_(Wakim_and_Grewal)/09%3A_Biological_Evolution/9.3%3A_Evidence_for_Evolution

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-wmopen-biology1/chapter/outcome-evidence-for-evolution/

And here is a more detailed version

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But proof? No. Proof is only in mathematics, not in the real, physical world. And proof texts? Nope; evolution does not come with infallible scriptures.



>
> --
> talk origins

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:23:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill Esque <"Bill
Esque"@gmail.com>:

>On 7/19/20 10:56 PM, RonO wrote:

<snip to a single point>

>> Why should there be a single fact that "proves" evolution beyond doubt?

>I wasn't requesting many proofs; just one. But then if it would be
>more practical to ask for 10 proofs that are unique to evolution, then
>please provide these ten proofs.

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. Science
doesn't "do" proof; science does observations, testable
hypotheses developed to explain those observations, and
theories developed from testing the hypotheses and from
further observation. And before you leap on that word
("theory"), "theory" in science isn't the same as its
meaning in common usage; in science, theory is as good as it
gets, and refers to a hypothesis which has been tested
repeatedly and never falsified, explains all of the current
data, and (ideally) makes predictions regarding future
discoveries and observations. "Proof" is used in math and
distillation, not science; hypotheses may be disproven
("falsified"), but never finally proven. All they can do is
provide the best explanation, based on testing and many
attempts to falsify them, for what we observe.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
--

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

[Glenn]

Bill, you may benefit more from this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_proof

Note the words used; hypothesis, theory, and inference.

You must make up your own mind about why evolutionists make such a fuss over the word "proof".

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:13:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

It's not just "evolutionists" but all scientists who avoid using
"proof" and its cognates when discussing scientific hypotheses and
theories.

And since you mention it, my experience is, it's pseudo-skeptics who
most often misuse the word.

[RonO]

Credentials do not mean anything in terms of the ID creationist scam.
It is bogus no matter what credentials the perpetrators have.

My guess is that my scientific credentials are better than both of these
two. Behe and I have about the same citation index, but most of Behe's
citations are people claiming that Behe is wrong about his ID claptrap.
Behe is also given credit for things that guys like Philip Johnson wrote.

Me:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=QP5FNzgAAAAJ

Behe:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SoYKl3wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Denton doesn't have a Google scholar entry.

The citation index is just an index that tells you something about how
may other scientists have used your research.

This doesn't really count for Behe's ID claptrap that he gets cited for
because like I said most of the legitimate scientists that cite the junk
have claimed that it is wrong.

Pretty much no one builds on the ID claptrap notions, not even Behe.

>>
>> How much biochemistry do you understand?  Molecular biology is still
>> used by the ID perps and other anti evolution types to fool the
>> creationist rubes because the rubes do not understand how they are
>> being lied to.  Such rubes will not understand anything that I could
>> tell them anymore than they understand what the ID perps and other
>> anti evolution creationists tell them.
> >
> I began my university studies in pre-med, but changed in my jr. year.
> So, I know a little something having taken years of biology, physiology
> through organisimal biology and o.b. labs, organic chemistry etc.

This is a paper on what another ID perp (Minnich) found out about the
evolution of the flagellum.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ

This is the paper on the flagellar tail proteins.
http://jb.asm.org/content/182/17/5001.long

They give the sequence and the protein sequence phylogeny in this paper.
By the protein sequence you can determine the relationships of the
tail protein genes with each other. They found that a series of gene
duplications had occurred during the evolution of the current flagellar
tail. The phylogeny is an unrooted phylogeny. This just means that
they did not use an outgroup protein to root the tree. They would need
the protein gene that the flagellar tail protein evolved from,but they
did not use it. It is thought that the tail proteins evolved from a
structural protein inside the bacteria that holds the bacteria in a
particular shape (rod like in the case of E. coli).

If you understand the protein sequence figure, you can determine that
FLJJ is the most distantly related sequence from all of the others, so
the root of the tree falls between FLJJ and FLJL/FLJK node, so their
tree is depicted incorrectly due to the graphic design and the unrooted
nature of their phylogenetic tree.

They describe what they found in the paper. There was an original tail
protein gene represented by FLJJ. At some point in time there was a
gene duplication and you got two copies of FLJJ. These two genes
coexisted for quite some time and diverged from each other during that
time. One of the copies became FLJJ and the other copy became FLJL.
After a period of time FLJL duplicated and these two new copies diverged
from each other for a while. One copy stayed FLJL, but the other copy
became FLJK. So at this point in time you have FLJJ, FLJL, and FLJK.
After a period of time FLJK duplcated and there were two copies of that
gene. The two new copies diverged over a period of time and one is now
FLJK and the other is FLJO. After another period of time FLJO
duplicated and the two new copies diverged and one stayed FLJO and the
other became FLJM or FLJN. We can't tell which (and it doesn't matter
because they were both identical to each other when they duplicated)
because they are the final duplication and they are the most closely
related to each other of all the flagellar proteins. FLJM and FLJN have
been evolving to be different from each other since that last
duplication event.

If you read the paper you find out that the order in which the genes
evolved is the order in which they are added to the tail of the
flagellum. FLJJ represents the original tail protein and forms the base
of the tail. FLJL is added next, then comes FLJK, then FLJO, and last
FLJM and FLJN.

So the evolution of these tail protein genes is the order that they are
added to the tail as the bacteria makes the flagellum.

This is the kind of molecular evidence that convinces creationists like
Behe and Denton that biological evolution is a fact of nature.

Perhaps you should not want to remain willfully ignorant. You should
try what I suggest above. Put together all the evidence that you think
supports your alternative, and then try to imagine several orders of
magnitude more and better evidence supporting biological evolution. The
comparison really isn't even close, that is why the bait and switch
keeps going down and no one ever gets the promised IDiot science.

The paper that I discuss above is just one example of how molecular
biology demonstrates that biological evolution is a fact of nature, and
it was produced by a creationist ID perp (well, at least, one of his
graduate students).

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:45:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yep. But most other fields don't constitute perceived
threats to personal beliefs. And Glenn doesn't understand
science anyway; all he can do is cherry-pick and
misconstrue.

>And since you mention it, my experience is, it's pseudo-skeptics who
>most often misuse the word.

Yep again, but let's not leave out those with a vested
interest in casting the science into doubt because they
think(?) it contradicts those same personal beliefs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:23:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Basically, credentials are meaningless; only objective facts
matter.

[Bill Esque]

If there is no proof, then trust, faith and hope comes to mind.


--
talk origins

[Glenn]

Those are all elements that afflict humankind. Few, however, think it possible to prove anything with absolute confidence. "Proof" is simply convincing evidence. A theory is an explanation of certain facts, explanations and convincing evidence are inferences, not facts.

Evolutionists are convinced that the explanation of evolution is proven beyond doubt. Trust, faith and hope are elements of that belief.

Expect evolutionists to scream bloody murder over the word "belief", and everything else above as well. Watch them closely.

[Mark Isaak]

If there is no proof, there is inductive reasoning. Throw in emotion,
and *then* you get faith and hope and some types of trust.

[jillery]

That might be true for you, but for me, reason and inference to the
best evidence come to mind. They are not the same. For example, even
though I can't prove you exist, that is a reasonable assumption based
on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
is required.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:27:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Since you say "proof is convincing evidence", that necessarily means
proof depends on your *opinion* of what is convincing.

>Evolutionists are convinced that the explanation of evolution is proven beyond doubt. Trust, faith and hope are elements of that belief.

Everything you wrote above are completely false. To the contrary, the
very definition of "scientific theory" which ToE is one, is that it
can be disproved.

>Expect evolutionists to scream bloody murder over the word "belief", and everything else above as well. Watch them closely.

That you conflate "belief" with "proof" is a good explanation why you
believe your opinions are sufficient proof.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 13:54:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No response? OK.

[Bill Esque]

I've read and heard it said often, that proof is limited to mathematics
and taxes. Will the sun rise daily 1000 year from now? Yes, it will:
based upon past billions of occurrence. Is this proof? Since there is no
reason to think this will not happen, I would say yes, this is proof.
Will there be humans around to observe it?


--
talk origins

[Bill Esque]

True! This might simply be a wonderful dream you are having. :)

that is a reasonable assumption based
> on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
> have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
> is required.
>

This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
to you. However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
or science, belief is important. There may not be proof of creation
for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
this scientific field. Just my opinion!



--
talk origins

[Glenn]

These are inferences, not facts as you claim (it will), or proof, since whether there is reason to think that the sun will rise in a thousand years, is not a fact nor evidence. You are simply expressing trust, hope and faith.

Belief isn't proof.

[Glenn]

Not true. The poster doesn't think that reason and inference can be proven, that the claim they are not the same can not be proven, and the claim that you can't be proven to exist can not be proven. It's a silly position to hold.
Of course you can be proven to exist.

You probably missed one thing the poster said, "inference to the best evidence".
There is no such thing in science, since explanation are not evidence, "best" is subjective, and evidence is itself inferred. "Inference to the best explanation" is the same, and what one sometimes hears. This boils down to a tautology "inference to the best inference".

"Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Belief_revision

>
> that is a reasonable assumption based
> > on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
> > have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
> > is required.
> >
> This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
> to you. However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
> difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
> or science, belief is important. There may not be proof of creation
> for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
> very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
> this scientific field. Just my opinion!
>

Religious beliefs are not absent of proof, although not everyone agrees with that proof. And you are correct that belief is important to scientists, and trust, faith and hope are elements of those beliefs.
Evolutionists will, of course, vociferously deny that.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:03:57 -0400, Bill Esque <"Bill

You say that with a smile, but that is a possibility. Or your posts
are from some artificial intelligence. Or from a sock puppet. There
are too many possibilities to list here.

The point is that what is possible is different from what is likely.
As a first approximation, it's best to go with the best inference
based on reason and evidence. Inferences by definition are open to
revision and refinement based on additional evidence. Inferences by
definition don't exclude all possibilities. To claim something is
proved with absolute certainty, by definition all possibilities but
one must be explicitly considered and eliminated.

>> that is a reasonable assumption based
>> on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
>> have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
>> is required.
> >
>This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
>to you.

That is your inference. However, I tell you it is incorrect. At a
practical level, I try not to waste my time on nonexistent entities.
And there are other reasons. So your existence matters to me. It is
your choice to believe me or not.

>However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
>difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
>or science, belief is important.

That is also your inference, and is equally incorrect, though for
different reasons.

>There may not be proof of creation
>for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
>very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
>this scientific field. Just my opinion!

I agree scientists also have faith and beliefs, because they are
human. As humans, we all make decisions based on insufficient
evidence. We can't read minds. We don't know what the future will
bring. Even so, we are obliged to muddle through life. And so by
necessity we believe and have faith our decisions are correct, or at
least hope they are good enough.

But evolution is a concept, and is either true or not, based on
objective evidence. There is no need to accept or reject it based on
beliefs. The same is true for all scientific concepts. As a thinking
person with a working mind, you have the ability to judge the evidence
of these concepts. Your only obligation is to use your mind and
decide for yourself if the evidence convinces you, and not to handwave
it away as mindless pseudo-skeptics do.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

You can't read minds, no matter how many times you pretend you can.

> that the claim they are not the same can not be proven, and the claim that you can't be proven to exist can not be proven. It's a silly position to hold.

I agree that's a silly position to hold, so it's a good thing that's
not what I said. Once again, you argue a strawman.

>Of course you can be proven to exist.

And that's your strawman. That I can't prove your existence over
Usenet is not the same thing. Learn to comprehend written English
before you put your foot in your mouth and shoot it off.

>You probably missed one thing the poster said, "inference to the best evidence".
>There is no such thing in science, since explanation are not evidence, "best" is subjective, and evidence is itself inferred. "Inference to the best explanation" is the same, and what one sometimes hears. This boils down to a tautology "inference to the best inference".

Incorrect. There are almost always many inferences. There is almost
always insufficient evidence. It takes effort to reason through it
all and find the inference to the best evidence. There may be more
than one. Or there may be none at all. Life doesn't come with
guarantees.

>"Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Belief_revision
>>
>> > that is a reasonable assumption based
>> > on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
>> > have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
>> > is required.
>> >
>> This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
>> to you. However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
>> difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
>> or science, belief is important. There may not be proof of creation
>> for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
>> very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
>> this scientific field. Just my opinion!
>>
>Religious beliefs are not absent of proof, although not everyone agrees with that proof. And you are correct that belief is important to scientists, and trust, faith and hope are elements of those beliefs.
>Evolutionists will, of course, vociferously deny that.

That is your inference, and it is incorrect.

[Bill Esque]

It's close enough to proof. IF creation or evolution had the same degree
of proof, this would suffice as proof.

As you've pointed out previously, there is an emotional involvement
where either evolution or a creation motif is discussed.

--
talk origins

[Mark Isaak]

The basic point you make is that wanting to believe something is reason
enough to believe it. In some cases that is true, but in a lot more
cases, that attitude is harmful and even deadly, to yourself and others.
I want to believe that pizza and chocolate bars are as healthy for me
as salads and fresh fruit, but my health will suffer if I consistently
act on that belief. Stock market bubbles are built by people wanting to
believe they'll get rich, and they ruin many people when they pop.
Thousands of Americans are sick or dead because leaders wanted to
believe that the Covid-19 problem was going away or was minimal to begin
with.

So sure, go with trust, faith, and hope on matter that are personal to
you and can affect *only* you, but for everything else, I hope your
belief has something more substantial to back it up.

[Bill Esque]

I know what artificial intelligence is, I never heard the term before,
but I can guess what a sock puppet is. But it shouldn't matter, since
all anyone can know is the words appearing on their CRT. In any case
William Esque is the name my late mother gave me.

>
> The point is that what is possible is different from what is likely.
> As a first approximation, it's best to go with the best inference
> based on reason and evidence. Inferences by definition are open to
> revision and refinement based on additional evidence. Inferences by
> definition don't exclude all possibilities. To claim something is
> proved with absolute certainty, by definition all possibilities but
> one must be explicitly considered and eliminated.
>

There is a term that closely approximates proof called "empirical
evidence". You appear to be well educated, so I don't have to explain
this to you.

>
>>> that is a reasonable assumption based
>>> on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
>>> have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
>>> is required.
>>>
>> This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
>> to you.
>
> That is your inference. However, I tell you it is incorrect. At a
> practical level, I try not to waste my time on nonexistent entities.
> And there are other reasons. So your existence matters to me. It is
> your choice to believe me or not.
>

Thank you! You are really kind. I appreciate you!

>
>
>> However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
>> difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
>> or science, belief is important.
>
>
> That is also your inference, and is equally incorrect, though for
> different reasons.
>

Sorry, to disagree. There has to be caring. Otherwise, it would not matter.
I believe the world was created and humans were created and placed on
it. How? I don't pretend to know. But if the creator chose to set
creation in motion by setting up laws and physical processes designed to
bring about living things including humans through evolution. I have no
problem with that. Proof, I know of no proof.

>
>> There may not be proof of creation
>> for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
>> very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
>> this scientific field. Just my opinion!
>
>
> I agree scientists also have faith and beliefs, because they are
> human. As humans, we all make decisions based on insufficient
> evidence. We can't read minds. We don't know what the future will
> bring. Even so, we are obliged to muddle through life. And so by
> necessity we believe and have faith our decisions are correct, or at
> least hope they are good enough.
>

Yes, excellent comment.

>
> But evolution is a concept, and is either true or not, based on
> objective evidence.
>

Objective evidence. I think the evidence we observe almost never
stands alone. But rather is fitted within an over-ridding paradigm.
If it fits is accepted as supporting evidence, if it doesn't fit
it's cast onto file thirteen.

There is no need to accept or reject it based on
> beliefs. The same is true for all scientific concepts.
>

If there is contrary and isolated evidence that applies directly
to the scientific concept in mind. By isolated evidence I mean
evidence that can be applied only to the scientific precept under
discussion.

As a thinking
> person with a working mind, you have the ability to judge the evidence
> of these concepts. Your only obligation is to use your mind and
> decide for yourself if the evidence convinces you, and not to handwave
> it away as mindless pseudo-skeptics do.
>

I agree!


--
talk origins

[jillery]

What you said. To which I add only an admitted pedantic point, that
reasons to believe and evidence are not the same thing.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:45:41 -0400, Bill Esque <"Bill

You're absolutely correct. All I know about you is what I see on the
screen. And because that's all I know, that very limited bit of
knowledge is completely consistent with a variety of inferences,
including that you don't actually exist.

Whether your existence matters is an entirely different question from
whether I can prove it.

>> The point is that what is possible is different from what is likely.
>> As a first approximation, it's best to go with the best inference
>> based on reason and evidence. Inferences by definition are open to
>> revision and refinement based on additional evidence. Inferences by
>> definition don't exclude all possibilities. To claim something is
>> proved with absolute certainty, by definition all possibilities but
>> one must be explicitly considered and eliminated.
>>
>There is a term that closely approximates proof called "empirical
>evidence". You appear to be well educated, so I don't have to explain
>this to you.

Incorrect. Empirical evidence are particular types of data collected
through the senses. Such data may or may not be relevant to what is
being proved, and they may or may not be objectively valid. An
important contribution of science is the recognition that humans and
their senses are limited and easily fooled.

OTOH proofs are a consequence of subjecting questions to tests to
determine their veracity. This process may include evidence, but
evidence, including empirical evidence, without the process are not
proofs.

>>>> that is a reasonable assumption based
>>>> on past experience and barring evidence to the contrary. Unless you
>>>> have personal meanings of these words than I, no trust, faith, or hope
>>>> is required.
>>>>
>>> This would be disappointing if I didn't exist. But it doesn't matter
>>> to you.
>>
>> That is your inference. However, I tell you it is incorrect. At a
>> practical level, I try not to waste my time on nonexistent entities.
>> And there are other reasons. So your existence matters to me. It is
>> your choice to believe me or not.
> >
>Thank you! You are really kind. I appreciate you!

Ok.

>>> However, it does to my wife, and that's a significant
>>> difference. Whenever it comes to creation or evolution, religion
>>> or science, belief is important.
>>
>>
>> That is also your inference, and is equally incorrect, though for
>> different reasons.
>>
>Sorry, to disagree. There has to be caring. Otherwise, it would not matter.
>I believe the world was created and humans were created and placed on
>it. How? I don't pretend to know. But if the creator chose to set
>creation in motion by setting up laws and physical processes designed to
>bring about living things including humans through evolution. I have no
>problem with that. Proof, I know of no proof.

You refer above to things that matter to you because you are human. My
comments below show that I agree with you on that point. The part of
your statement which is incorrect is about evolution and science. Both
are concepts, the veracity of which is not dependent on how much you
care about them.

>>> There may not be proof of creation
>>> for example, but for some people, in the absence of proof, belief is
>>> very important. This applies to evolution and scientist who work in
>>> this scientific field. Just my opinion!
>>
>>
>> I agree scientists also have faith and beliefs, because they are
>> human. As humans, we all make decisions based on insufficient
>> evidence. We can't read minds. We don't know what the future will
>> bring. Even so, we are obliged to muddle through life. And so by
>> necessity we believe and have faith our decisions are correct, or at
>> least hope they are good enough.
> >
>Yes, excellent comment.
>>
>> But evolution is a concept, and is either true or not, based on
>> objective evidence.
> >
>Objective evidence. I think the evidence we observe almost never
>stands alone. But rather is fitted within an over-ridding paradigm.
>If it fits is accepted as supporting evidence, if it doesn't fit
>it's cast onto file thirteen.

You are correct; all evidence is theory laden, including empirical
evidence. That's one reason why evidence by themselves can't prove
anything.

> There is no need to accept or reject it based on
>> beliefs. The same is true for all scientific concepts.
> >
>If there is contrary and isolated evidence that applies directly
>to the scientific concept in mind. By isolated evidence I mean
>evidence that can be applied only to the scientific precept under
>discussion.

Sorry, I don't understand your point above.

>> As a thinking
>> person with a working mind, you have the ability to judge the evidence
>> of these concepts. Your only obligation is to use your mind and
>> decide for yourself if the evidence convinces you, and not to handwave
>> it away as mindless pseudo-skeptics do.
>>
>I agree!

Then you and I have a solid basis for substantive discussion.

[RonO]

So Bill Esque is going to run from playing the credential card and from
trying to understand what type of evidence that exists for biological
evolution even when that evidence was produced by IDiot/creationists.

If you refuse to learn anything from someone that is qualified to tell
you about the subject, why bother to lie to yourself about this issue?

Ron Okimoto

[Daud Deden]

Jees, I'm glad I'm not in this thread. That alone is equal to a handfull of aspirin.