Evolution and Intelligent Design

[par...@yahoo.com]

Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.

At least, many poeple think so.

But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.

Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued by the well-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.

This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.

Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.

(Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).

[Bill Rogers]

Yes, some formulations of Intelligent Design are completely compatible with science. As you suggest, you could postulate a designer who operates according to mechanistic physical laws. Alternatively, you could postulate a less physical designer who is responsible for the physical laws being what they are and who wanted them to produce the universe exactly as it is. Or you can loosen up the definition of "intelligent" or "designer" so that the universe and/or the physical laws themselves count as the "intelligent designer."

[RonO]

Intelligent design has no such model for the design of life. It fails
in that respect to amount to anything except speculation. There is no
evidence that life was designed by any god or whatever such type of
designer. Where have you ever seen an IDiot lay out how life was
created like we know a clock is created? Lifeforms make things like
clocks, but what makes lifeforms? Where is the intelligent design and
manufacture in going from a single cell to a baby human?

Essentially nothing would disprove the concept of intelligent design.
Even if the flagellum was observed to evolve by itself in some
hermetically sealed container without outside intervention, the IDiots
would still claim that the designer did it originally, and how can you
disprove that?

With no evidence that such a god-like designer even exists to do the
designing you have some IDiots claiming that no matter what we learn
about science the intelligent designer did it exactly like it says in
the Bible. It doesn't matter how old the earth looks, or that the
history of evolution of life took billions of years, their designer can
do anything, and make reality look like anything.

>
> (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>

Some people do not know the difference between a clock and a living
cell. As strange as that may seem it is obviously true.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>
> At least, many poeple think so.
>
> But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
>

> Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b
y the w

ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.

The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
be made of the same types of materials as the "clock". The builder's
"hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.

It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
able to control.

They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
God is intolerable to them.

That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
God.

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:19:06 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> >
> > At least, many poeple think so.
> >
> > But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
> >
> > Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b
> y the w
> ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
>
> The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
> see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
> think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
> be made of the same types of materials as the "clock". The builder's
> "hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
> see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
> explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
> events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
> as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.
>
> It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
> control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
> comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
> biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
> able to control.

.......

> They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
> God is intolerable to them.

You couldn't pay me enough to be God.

You may or may not be accurate in your understanding of your own motivations, but you are definitely not accurate in your guesses about the motivations of others.

[Robert Camp]

It's not similar. Your example fails for the same reason most analogical
reasoning by ID proponents fails - it presumes one can reason from
naturalistic design to transcendent design.

Yes, human designers are natural phenomena, and yes, the products of
their designing activity can be accounted for by purely natural
processes, so, yes, there are alternate facets that allow us to see an
artifact as both the product of intelligence and the product of natural
forces.

But the cause and effect focus of ID remains. Is something we can
observe the product of intelligent action? In the case of clocks we can
definitively say yes, even while understanding that the ultimate source
of the material is natural.

None of this can be analogized to some putative extra-natural
"intelligence," and its effects on our reality. We know nothing of any
proposed supernatural agent, so there is no foundational set of
observations that supports analogical conclusions on the subject of design.

It always comes back to the need for evidence of the designer. That
precedes any analogical argument.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:57:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

But it's not a guess to him; it's an integral part of his
worldview, exactly as Ray sees design in nature, and is
impossible to refute using logic. He simply "knows" it
because he believes it.

>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>> God.
>>
>> > This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>> >
>> > Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>> >
>> > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>> >
>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Kalkidas]

You call that an argument?

[August Rode]

Are you suggesting that you understand his motivations better than he does? If so, on what basis?

[Steady Eddie]

How do you know that? You can only speak for yourself, according to your above comment.

[Steady Eddie]

+1
Very insightful comment.

[John Stockwell]

Nope. The issue is that biology is in no way like human-manufactured items,
first and foremost because organisms are self-replicating.

If you want to claim that life is manufactured, then you must deliver the
manufacturing process and show evidence that this manufacturing process
has been applied. There is not a single case brought forward of a correct "intelligent design inference" that was not a case of known manufacturing
and evidence of manufacture.

-John

[jillery]

I know of no one who posts to T.O. who doesn't know that clocks are
designed. OTOH I do know of several IDiots on T.O. who think that the
nature of clocks has any relevance to the origin of life.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:14:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Very prescient of you to note a feature Ray and Kalkidas have in
common. Apparently for some people, instead of trying to understand
reality, apparently it's easier for them to just imagine reality.

>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>>> God.
>>>
>>> > This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>>> >
>>> > Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>>> >
>>> > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>>> >
>>
--

[Steady Eddie]

...and I know a lot of Darwinists on TO that are too dense to understand the connection.

[Steady Eddie]

So what?
Can you imagine "if" humans developed the technology to create self-replicating organisms?
Would the present extant life leave traces of its manufacture?

> If you want to claim that life is manufactured, then you must deliver the
> manufacturing process and show evidence that this manufacturing process
> has been applied. There is not a single case brought forward of a correct "intelligent design inference" that was not a case of known manufacturing
> and evidence of manufacture.

Well, life manufactures itself. It has since it got started.
It was intelligently designed to.

[Steady Eddie]

PING! shit.

[jillery]

>...and I know a lot of Darwinists on TO that are too dense to understand the connection.

I'm sure you think you do. OTOH I also know you know of at least one
IDiot who refuses to say what he thinks is the connection.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>PING! shit.


...for brains.

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 21 באפריל 2016 בשעה 00:34:05 UTC+3, מאת John Stockwell:

And if humans ever produce some self-replicating conmputer virus, or even a self-replicating machine, would that convince you that self-replication is irrelevant to the argument?

Indeed the laws of biology differ from those of physics, in that they deal with self-replicating creatures. But this is irrelevant. The question is whether we can deduce ID from the laws themselves or their product.

> If you want to claim that life is manufactured, then you must deliver the
> manufacturing process and show evidence that this manufacturing process
> has been applied. There is not a single case brought forward of a correct "intelligent design inference" that was not a case of known manufacturing
> and evidence of manufacture.
>

In other words, if I want to claim that clocks are manufactures, you require me to present the manufacturer and the blueprints of the process. If I fail to know the producer, or don't have the technical details of the process, you'll refuse to admit that clocks are designed.

Let me restate my last sentence of my previous post:

(Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).

Suppose you find a really new kind of technology (the newest cellphone, or whatever). No one tells you who designed it (because no one knows it yet) or the process (it's a commercial secret). Won't you be able to deduce the existence of a designer who you never saw?

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 01:13:50 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:

>?????? ??? ?????, 21 ?????? 2016 ???? 00:34:05 UTC+3, ??? John Stockwell:

Since you're apparently incapable of reading for comprehension, let me
help you. In other words, you need to cite where anybody claims
clocks aren't manufactured.

>Let me restate my last sentence of my previous post:

Repeating stupid comments doesn't make them any less stupid.

>(Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>
>Suppose you find a really new kind of technology (the newest cellphone, or whatever). No one tells you who designed it (because no one knows it yet) or the process (it's a commercial secret). Won't you be able to deduce the existence of a designer who you never saw?

And nobody says cell phones aren't manufactured. Just sayin'.

>> -John
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>> > >
>> > > Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>> > >
>> > > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>> > >

[RonO]

IDiocy is such a failure that even the ID perps that sold the ID scam
have a new scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent design ever
existed. That should tell you how viable your stupidity is.

Really, what has IDiocy ever amounted to in the entire history of
science? Not a single IDiot success, ever. Zero.

What does that tell you?

You seem to understand that clocks and lifeforms are different, so why
try to make your stupid unsupportable claims? When have such claims
amounted to anything?

You even admit that you have absolutely no evidence of such a designer
existing, so why claim that it did anything?

We have humans and they make clocks. We have lifeforms and no one
makes them, they make themselves. Not only that, but they are not
perfect replicators and they change over time. Some of the changes
increase in frequency by chance or due to having some advantage in
certain environments, and what do you get?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

OK. Think carefully about this example. What sort of thing am I supposed to be seeing. Is it really just a different, newer type of phone? Does it look like other phones? If not, what makes me think it is a phone? Can I make it work? If so, I infer there is a designer because it is very similar to other phones, and I know that people design, build and use phones.

Now, imagine the putative new technology looks nothing at all like any thing designed by a human; and it looks like nothing I've seen in nature. It has no function that I can figure out. It has no marks on it that look analogous to writing. It's not an obvious mineral formation or crystal. I'm just puzzled. I cannot infer a designer, because it's not remotely like anything made by any designer I've come across. But it sure does not look like anything I've seen in nature. At that point I just think it's very interesting, and I cannot draw a conclusion.

If we knew that organisms were designed and manufactured, we could look at a new organism and infer that it, too, had been designed and manufactured. But we do not know that. That's the whole point of the argument. The ID argument is that living things are so similar to designed machines that they, too, must have been designed. I don't buy it, because we know of no designer that designs and builds organisms from scratch, much less whole ecosystems, but if you find it convincing, knock yourself out.

[Steady Eddie]

What an idiot.

[Steady Eddie]

Agreed. The guy's an idiot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:35:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by August Rode
<aug....@gmail.com>:

See my response to Bill Rogers elsethread.

>> >> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>> >> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>> >> God.
>> >>
>> >>> This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>> >>>
>> >>> (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:18:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

I suspect he'd call it a refutation of your assertion, plus
a note that you lack omniscience.

>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>>> God.
>>>
>>>> This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>>>>
>>>> Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>>>>
>>>> (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>>>>
>>
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:49:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Thanks. I'd add that they seem to think that what they
imagine is superior to what they (and others) actually
observe.

>>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>>>> God.
>>>>
>>>> > This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>>>> >
>>>> > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>>>> >
>>>
--

[Bill]

par...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.

A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance. The existence
of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.

Bill

[Kalkidas]

A mechanistic model is possible to imagine, only because imagination can
cheat, by pretending not to notice inconvenient facts (consciousness),
or by treating fuzzy concepts (chance) as if they were real solid
things, or by bait-and-switch tactics (giving examples of minor
variation as proof of "evolution" to gain people's confidence and then
switching the bait to fantastic just-so stories when people are
"softened up" enough to accept them without questioning.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/21/16 5:26 PM, Bill wrote:
> par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
>> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
>> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
>> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>
> A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
> possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance.

Interesting. Please favor us with an outline of a magical model for the
evolution of life that some (any?) rational person might consider
"possible."

> The existence
> of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
> informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
> here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.

Your nihilism is really just boring at this point. Perhaps some crystals
might regenerate that declining woo-fu?

[RonO]

Projection on your part is so stupid at this point in time that I don't
know what IDiots like you get out of it.

Did you ever get the science of intelligent design from the ID perps
that sold you the ID scam? What did you get instead? What will you get
tomorrow if you need the ID science? What is your explanation for the
fact that ID isn't even mentioned in the switch scam that you would get
instead. Aren't the same guys that sold you the ID scam running the
switch scam? What does that fact mean to an IDiot like you.

Ron Okimoto

[SortingItOut]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> >
> > At least, many poeple think so.
> >
> > But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
> >

> > Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b

> y the w
> ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
>
> The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
> see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
> think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
> be made of the same types of materials as the "clock".

No, it's just that there's no evidence for a non-material builder, or any other non-material entity.

Imaginary entities are not an "explanation".

> The builder's
> "hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
> see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
> explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
> events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
> as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.

There's no evidence anything magical is occurring, or has occurred.

>
> It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
> control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
> comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
> biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
> able to control.
>
> They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
> God is intolerable to them.

I don't know any materialist that thinks this way. Do you?

>
> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
> God.

What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.

See how that works? What do claims like that accomplish? Wouldn't it be better to set all that nonsense aside and actually look at the evidence?

[jillery]

Bill passed boring a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:26:36 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
>> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
>> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
>> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>
>A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
>possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance. The existence
>of a model doesn't make it correct.

I stipulate AOTA are truisms not in dispute.

>A model that is mechanistic is only
>informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct.

Any model, mechanistic or otherwise, is informative to the degree that
it explains the evidence. Those which explain the evidence to a
greater degree are better models.

>In the case
>here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.

And repeating your nihilism doesn't make your nihilism correct,
either.

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 21 באפריל 2016 בשעה 15:24:03 UTC+3, מאת Bill Rogers:

Ok, so let's refine the example a bit. This newest cellphone is handed not to you, but to the most primitive tribe you can find in middle-Africa (or the Amazonas). They've never ever saw anything similar before, have no ideas of cellphones or technology at all. and didn't ever guess that humans can design anything more complicated than a sword.

So the question of its appearance is irrelevant. But let's assume they succeed in operating it (maybe there's some sort of operation book included, since we can't trust their intuition). They operate it, and find they can communicate with many other people in the world, see maps of everything, send SMSs, surf the Web, set an alarm clock and many other functions.

These functions are surprisingly tailored to human beings. When speaking, the voice frequencies that are transmitted are these the mouth can produce and the ear can hear. The volume is comfortable to the ear. The light emmission of the screen is comfortable to the eye. The functions of the gadget are indeed very useful to humans. Its size is easy to handle, and the clicking device (some kind of keyboard?) fits the human fingers, etc. etc.

Would they be able to deduce that some sort of intelligence is behind this all? (I assume of course they don't encounter any language barrier or other technical problem. Also, theoretically another option of design exists, namely, that the human body and needs were designed in accordance to the phone's specifications. But in this example, they happen to know it's not the case).

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 08:29:00 UTC+3, מאת jillery:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:26:36 -0500, Bill <freo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >part...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
> >> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
> >> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
> >> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> >> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> >
> >A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> >involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
> >possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance. The existence
> >of a model doesn't make it correct.
>
>
> I stipulate AOTA are truisms not in dispute.
>
>
> >A model that is mechanistic is only
> >informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct.
>
>
> Any model, mechanistic or otherwise, is informative to the degree that
> it explains the evidence. Those which explain the evidence to a
> greater degree are better models.
>

Congratulations. This seems to be your first rational remark on this thread. Go on!

And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are only able to infer that fact from comparison to other (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclussion. Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.

I guess that thinking that leads to such conclussions (or lack of) is called 'rational' by your book. But even you should see its disadvantages, making you unable to infer conclussions which happen to be correct.

[Bill Rogers]

These primitive folks are able to read and understand the operating manual? Well, if they can read the manual, they have plenty in common with whoever made the phone, and they will likely deduce that somebody, somebody rather like them built it.

>
> These functions are surprisingly tailored to human beings. When speaking, the voice frequencies that are transmitted are these the mouth can produce and the ear can hear. The volume is comfortable to the ear. The light emmission of the screen is comfortable to the eye. The functions of the gadget are indeed very useful to humans. Its size is easy to handle, and the clicking device (some kind of keyboard?) fits the human fingers, etc. etc.

And since it comes with a manual which they apparently can read and understand, they will likely conclude that the thing was built by people who have much in common with them.

Analogously, if we someday sequence a genome and the DNA sequence spells out in some simple code an English language manual for how to operate a mitochondrion, then I'll be convinced that cells were designed. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>>>
>>> At least, many poeple think so.
>>>
>>> But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
>>>
>>> Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b
>> y the w
>> ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
>>
>> The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
>> see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
>> think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
>> be made of the same types of materials as the "clock".
>
> No, it's just that there's no evidence for a non-material builder, or any other non-material entity.

Yes there is. As I said, you haven't looked for it because you don't
expect to find it. Your prophecy is self-fulfilling.

> Imaginary entities are not an "explanation".

And no one has ever proposed an "imaginary entity" as an explanation of
the origin of species.

>> The builder's
>> "hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
>> see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
>> explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
>> events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
>> as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.
>
> There's no evidence anything magical is occurring, or has occurred.

"Random events" are magical. So are "the laws of biology". You can
produce tangible, physical examples of neither.

>> It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
>> control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
>> comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
>> biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
>> able to control.
>>
>> They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
>> God is intolerable to them.
>
> I don't know any materialist that thinks this way. Do you?

Yes, you think that way. The proof is that you prematurely claim there's
no evidence for God or any non-material entities, yet you haven't looked
for any evidence. Those who have looked for such evidence have found it.

Therefore, since your approach is so obviously irrational, it indicates
a psychological problem. Your reason is damaged.

>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>> God.
>
> What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.

My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
aversion.

> See how that works? What do claims like that accomplish? Wouldn't it be better to set all that nonsense aside and actually look at the evidence?

Go ahead, look at the evidence. I already have.

[Steady Eddie]

+10

[Steady Eddie]

Right on the mark!
+10

You guys are SCHOOLING these clowns!

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:33:41 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You guys are SCHOOLING these clowns!

Nursery school doesn't count.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:

>?????? ??? ????, 22 ?????? 2016 ???? 08:29:00 UTC+3, ??? jillery:

>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:26:36 -0500, Bill <freo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >part...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
>> >> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
>> >> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
>> >> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>> >> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>> >
>> >A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>> >involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
>> >possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance. The existence
>> >of a model doesn't make it correct.
>>
>>
>> I stipulate AOTA are truisms not in dispute.
>>
>>
>> >A model that is mechanistic is only
>> >informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct.
>>
>>
>> Any model, mechanistic or otherwise, is informative to the degree that
>> it explains the evidence. Those which explain the evidence to a
>> greater degree are better models.
>>
>Congratulations. This seems to be your first rational remark on this thread. Go on!

I'm sure it seems that way to you. Do you always introduce yourself
with your chin?

>And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock were not designed.

And I never claimed that you claimed that anyone thinks that clock
were not designed. Your pointless pedantry cuts both ways.

>I did argue, however, that some people are only able to infer that fact from comparison to other (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclussion. Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
>
>I guess that thinking that leads to such conclussions (or lack of) is called 'rational' by your book.

You can guess whatever you like, but your presumption of what other
people infer, and so your guess of what I call their thinking, is
incorrect because your premise is incorrect.

IIUC your premise is that functionality and usefulness are evidence of
design. Here's a fellow who makes a similar argument:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4>

Your premise has two fatal flaws: 1) functionality and usefulness are
not intrinsic to objects, and 2) functionality and usefulness are not
limited to designed objects.

Instead functionality is applied by objects' users at the time they
use them. As a trivial example, one can use a rock for many functions;
as a hammer, or a paperweight, or a doorstop, or as part of a wall, or
as an abstract decoration. Hopefully even you recognize that most
rocks are not designed.

And even if an object is designed, and even if its designer designed a
specific function for it, its users are not limited to using that
object as its designer intended. Kenneth Miller's mousetrap tie clip
is a good example of that.

So the fact that people find functionality and usefulness to objects
says nothing at all about whether objects are designed. Instead,
what's designed is the users' application of objects.

I agree that an ignorant but otherwise competent person is likely to
conclude that a clock is designed, but not because a clock has
functionality and usefulness. To the contrary, a person ignorant of
clocks almost certainly would find no use for a clock's designed
functionality. Instead, that person will make that conclusion based
on features similar to other objects they know to be designed, and/or
based on features contrasting with other objects they know to be not
designed.

>But even you should see its disadvantages, making you unable to infer conclussions which happen to be correct.

All conclusions have disadvantages, some more than others. Right here
would be a good place for you to say what disadvantages you have in
mind.

And by the way, cell phones designed functionality isn't useful
without nearby powered cell towers. Just sayin'.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/22/16 6:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
>>> God.
>>
>> What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional
>> "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the
>> argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and
>> it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it
>> to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.
>
> My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
> aversion.

"I'm right because I know I'm right. You must be wrong because, well,
I'm right."

("And I somehow have both the pomposity to act as if this is a matter of
moral superiority, and the naiveté to assume my arguments deserve more
respect than the presumptive nonsense offered by Ray Martinez, with whom
I share a stunning lack of self-awareness.")

[Kalkidas]

On 4/22/2016 7:40 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 4/22/16 6:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the
>>>> real
>>>> God.
>>>
>>> What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional
>>> "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the
>>> argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and
>>> it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it
>>> to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.
>>
>> My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
>> aversion.
>
> "I'm right because I know I'm right. You must be wrong because, well,
> I'm right."

If you don't look for evidence of God, you won't find it. And if you
then pretend that you have determined there's no God, then you are
(barely) human garbage, and whatever "love" you think you have is just
the hubris of the demoniac.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 09:03:59 UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 7:40 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 4/22/16 6:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
> >>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the
> >>>> real
> >>>> God.
> >>>
> >>> What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional
> >>> "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the
> >>> argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and
> >>> it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it
> >>> to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.
> >>
> >> My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
> >> aversion.
> >
> > "I'm right because I know I'm right. You must be wrong because, well,
> > I'm right."
>
> If you don't look for evidence of God, you won't find it. And if you
> then pretend that you have determined there's no God, then you are
> (barely) human garbage, and whatever "love" you think you have is just
> the hubris of the demoniac.

Whoosh! The gloves come off!
I understand your frustration with these idiots.
At some point they need to be told how blind they are.

I don't, however, agree that Robert Camp or anyone else here (with the possible exception of Ron O. (just
joking)) is really "(barely) human garbage". That veers into the hateful, and is something that only God can
judge.

Your line of reasoning us unassailable - they don't see evidence for God because they refuse to look.
Keep up the good work.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/22/16 5:14 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> [...]

> Ok, so let's refine the example a bit. This newest cellphone is handed
> not to you, but to the most primitive tribe you can find in
> middle-Africa (or the Amazonas). They've never ever saw anything
> similar before, have no ideas of cellphones or technology at all. and
> didn't ever guess that humans can design anything more complicated
> than a sword.
>
> So the question of its appearance is irrelevant. But let's assume they
> succeed in operating it (maybe there's some sort of operation book
> included, since we can't trust their intuition). They operate it, and
> find they can communicate with many other people in the world, see
> maps of everything, send SMSs, surf the Web, set an alarm clock and
> many other functions.
>
> These functions are surprisingly tailored to human beings. When
> speaking, the voice frequencies that are transmitted are these the
> mouth can produce and the ear can hear. The volume is comfortable to
> the ear. The light emmission of the screen is comfortable to the
> eye. The functions of the gadget are indeed very useful to humans. Its
> size is easy to handle, and the clicking device (some kind of
> keyboard?) fits the human fingers, etc. etc.
>
> Would they be able to deduce that some sort of intelligence is behind
> this all?

Easily. First, it obviously has functions which are not only useful,
but are tailored for certain applications. This shows that it is not
some sort of cast-off, such as an eggshell or shed skin. Second, its
function is not dedicated to self-reproduction. Only designers make the
manufacturing a separate process.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]

> And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
> were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
> only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
> (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
> clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior

> or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.

> Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.

Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?

Some people seem to jump directly to the conclusion that it must be
designed if it moves under its own power, but as some of the examples
above show, that is not necessarily so. See if you can come up with
good answers to those questions.

[Kalkidas]

I get your point. But this is not a game. These reptilian atheists are
doing great harm to the world. They are abusing the valuable opportunity
that the human form gives, and they are drawing others into their folly.
I will always deliver judgment to them, until kingdom come and they are
driven back down to their proper subterranean dwellings.

Don't shoot the messenger! :-)

[Robert Camp]

On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:

> בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 08:29:00 UTC+3, מאת jillery:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:26:36 -0500, Bill <freo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> part...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

>>> A model that is mechanistic is only informative if mechanistic
>>> explanations are proven correct.
>>
>>
>> Any model, mechanistic or otherwise, is informative to the degree
>> that it explains the evidence. Those which explain the evidence to
>> a greater degree are better models.
>>
> Congratulations. This seems to be your first rational remark on this
> thread. Go on!
>
> And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock were
> not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are only able to
> infer that fact from comparison to other (known-to-be-designed)
> gadgets, or from prior knowledge that clocks are designed.

Not "some people," *all* people. Including those who've convinced
themselves otherwise.

There is no method by which we conclude something is designed other than
comparisons and prior knowledge. There is no magical intuition involved
here, there is no transcendent "designedness" that emanates from
artifacts. There is only the normal human process of observation and
inference.

> That is,
> given a clock and no other prior or external knowledge, they won't
> reach this conclussion. Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing
> to them.

Without any "other prior or external knowledge," there would be no way
to infer functionality and usefulness as indicative of design. You seem
unable to recognize the consequences of your own thought experiment.

> I guess that thinking that leads to such conclussions (or lack of) is
> called 'rational' by your book.

It certainly is by my book.

> But even you should see its
> disadvantages, making you unable to infer conclussions which happen
> to be correct.

Unfortunately, you have insufficiently examined your own intuitions and
convictions on this issue, making you liable to infer conclusions (or
"conclussions" if you prefer) that happen to be incorrect.

[Steady Eddie]

You don't think there's a little more to it than locomotion?

Try to get some idea of what you're talking about:

THE INNER LIFE OF THE CELL FULL VERSION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_24UyJc-qw

Oh, but I forgot...
You are impervious to education, and you think observation is based on inference - this educational
animation will do you no good.

[Steady Eddie]

Okay, but don't forget Jude 9.

[Kalkidas]

If it agrees with Bhagavad-gita, I will do my best to observe it. If it
disagrees with Bhagavad-gita, I will ignore it.


>

[Bill]

Characterizing my views as nihilistic says more about your own views. You
assume your views are indisputably correct which has to mean that all others
are not. This is not the path to knowledge but ensures and inflexible dogma.

Bill

[Bill]

Robert Camp wrote:

> On 4/21/16 5:26 PM, Bill wrote:
>> par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
>>> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
>>> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
>>> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>>
>> A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
>> possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance.
>
> Interesting. Please favor us with an outline of a magical model for the
> evolution of life that some (any?) rational person might consider
> "possible."

A magical model might be: the universe poofed into existence. Life poofed
into existence. Living things develop handy features to adapt to their
environment. Life progresses from primitive to advanced in a convenient
curve. Each step in this process is accompanied by all manner of
explanations and these are considered correct simply because they are
explanations.

>
>> The existence
>> of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
>> informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
>> here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.
>
> Your nihilism is really just boring at this point. Perhaps some crystals
> might regenerate that declining woo-fu?

You say nihilistic because you believe your explanations are the only ones
possible - any others dispute your certainty making them a denial of the
explanations. This like suppressing non-standard views as heresy because
they contradict the accepted dogma, even if true.

You hope to discredit this point of view by calling it woo which shows the
depth of your commitment to uncontroversial, banal and boring standardized
thought.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 4/22/16 11:08 AM, Bill wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/16 5:26 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
>>>> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
>>>> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
>>>> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>>>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>>>
>>> A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
>>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
>>> possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance.
>>
>> Interesting. Please favor us with an outline of a magical model for the
>> evolution of life that some (any?) rational person might consider
>> "possible."
>
> A magical model might be: the universe poofed into existence. Life poofed
> into existence. Living things develop handy features to adapt to their
> environment. Life progresses from primitive to advanced in a convenient
> curve. Each step in this process is accompanied by all manner of
> explanations and these are considered correct simply because they are
> explanations.

And by what criteria have you determined that "the universe poofed into
existence" and "Life poofed into existence" are, to use your words,
"obviously possible"?

To allow, as I would, that a particular model cannot be proved
impossible, is far different from claiming it stands as a reasonable,
live alternative. You've explicitly put your magical model on a par with
mechanistic models, I'd like to know what analytical process informs
that conclusion.

>>> The existence
>>> of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
>>> informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
>>> here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.
>>
>> Your nihilism is really just boring at this point. Perhaps some crystals
>> might regenerate that declining woo-fu?
>
> You say nihilistic because you believe your explanations are the only ones
> possible

No, that's another of your seemingly endless supply of strawmen. I
believe my explanations are the most solidly backed by evidence and
logical inference.

You, on the other hand, in your nihilistic glory actually discount
evidence and logic (if you take umbrage at this suggestion just refer to
your magical model above).

> - any others dispute your certainty making them a denial of the
> explanations. This like suppressing non-standard views as heresy because
> they contradict the accepted dogma, even if true.

Well, your epistemological brilliance and intellectual courage are truly
compelling and nearly irresistible, but I shall go down digging in my
hidebound heels and clinging to my entrenched dogma with my very
fingernails.

> You hope to discredit this point of view by calling it woo which shows the
> depth of your commitment to uncontroversial, banal and boring standardized
> thought.

I don't hope to discredit your point of view. It leaves your keyboard
pre-discredited.

[Bill]

Any model will have have to assume whatever it exists to explain. A God-did-
it model assumes the existence of God(s). A mechanistic model assumes no
need of the God-did-it model. Each obviates the other and neither can be
proved in a non-circular way.

A magical origin of origins is entirely plausible simply because there is no
external validation possible; it is inevitably, self-referential. All other
other models have exactly the same handicap so preferring one to another
depends on whatever bias one starts with.

>
>>>> The existence
>>>> of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
>>>> informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
>>>> here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.
>>>
>>> Your nihilism is really just boring at this point. Perhaps some crystals
>>> might regenerate that declining woo-fu?
>>
>> You say nihilistic because you believe your explanations are the only
>> ones possible
>
> No, that's another of your seemingly endless supply of strawmen. I
> believe my explanations are the most solidly backed by evidence and
> logical inference.

You believe explanations you believe explain something based on what you
already believe are explained.

>
> You, on the other hand, in your nihilistic glory actually discount
> evidence and logic (if you take umbrage at this suggestion just refer to
> your magical model above).

Evidence that only confirms bias is really just bias. Logic is infinitely
variable and "prove" just about anything. There is a kind of middle ground
where intuition, derived from both evidence and logic provide hint at better
solutions even if they don't explain anything. You seem to believe that
absolute certainty is the ultimate goal of wondering about stuff.

>
>> - any others dispute your certainty making them a denial of the
>> explanations. This like suppressing non-standard views as heresy because
>> they contradict the accepted dogma, even if true.
>
> Well, your epistemological brilliance and intellectual courage are truly
> compelling and nearly irresistible, but I shall go down digging in my
> hidebound heels and clinging to my entrenched dogma with my very
> fingernails.
>
>> You hope to discredit this point of view by calling it woo which shows
>> the depth of your commitment to uncontroversial, banal and boring
>> standardized thought.
>
> I don't hope to discredit your point of view. It leaves your keyboard
> pre-discredited.

Yet returns fully justified - thanks.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

Utter nonsense. The only assumption underlying a mechanistic model that
cannot be "proved" is that the universe is not lying to us, that
empirical knowledge is reliable and replicable. As first principles go,
this is a far, *far* less presumptuous axiom than those involved in any
non-mechanistic model, especially one inferring the agency of a
supernatural being.

Rejecting the assumptions of your magical model is an act of reason.
Rejecting the assumption of science is an act of epistemic nihilism.
After all this time, you still haven't thought any of this through.

> A magical origin of origins is entirely plausible simply because there is no
> external validation possible; it is inevitably, self-referential.

By what rationale do you conclude that this leaves it "entirely
plausible"? Anyone can construct a model that is logically plausible,
one that has no internal contradictions. But that's completely unrelated
to real-world plausibility, wherein one offers actual reasons to accept
the model. You're not establishing anything remotely resembling
empirical plausibility. You're "plausibility" is merely an artifact of
language (and probably a good bit of tetrahydrocannabinol).

Your whole argument is hopelessly self-referential, and therefore
without any possible demonstration of plausibility.

> All other
> other models have exactly the same handicap so preferring one to another
> depends on whatever bias one starts with.

No, all other models do not have exactly the same handicap at all. With
mechanistic models, external validation is entirely possible, it happens
all the time and is the antithesis of self-referential.

>>>>> The existence
>>>>> of a model doesn't make it correct. A model that is mechanistic is only
>>>>> informative if mechanistic explanations are proven correct. In the case
>>>>> here, mechanistic explanations are assumed and not proved.
>>>>
>>>> Your nihilism is really just boring at this point. Perhaps some crystals
>>>> might regenerate that declining woo-fu?
>>>
>>> You say nihilistic because you believe your explanations are the only
>>> ones possible
>>
>> No, that's another of your seemingly endless supply of strawmen. I
>> believe my explanations are the most solidly backed by evidence and
>> logical inference.
>
> You believe explanations you believe explain something based on what you
> already believe are explained.

Well, I do think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick
and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people in this country are
sick and tired. I'm certainly not. But I'm sick and tired of being told
that I am.

>> You, on the other hand, in your nihilistic glory actually discount
>> evidence and logic (if you take umbrage at this suggestion just refer to
>> your magical model above).
>
> Evidence that only confirms bias is really just bias. Logic is infinitely
> variable and "prove" just about anything. There is a kind of middle ground
> where intuition, derived from both evidence and logic provide hint at better
> solutions even if they don't explain anything. You seem to believe that
> absolute certainty is the ultimate goal of wondering about stuff.

You seem to be unable to read anything for comprehension.

>>> - any others dispute your certainty making them a denial of the
>>> explanations. This like suppressing non-standard views as heresy because
>>> they contradict the accepted dogma, even if true.
>>
>> Well, your epistemological brilliance and intellectual courage are truly
>> compelling and nearly irresistible, but I shall go down digging in my
>> hidebound heels and clinging to my entrenched dogma with my very
>> fingernails.
>>
>>> You hope to discredit this point of view by calling it woo which shows
>>> the depth of your commitment to uncontroversial, banal and boring
>>> standardized thought.
>>
>> I don't hope to discredit your point of view. It leaves your keyboard
>> pre-discredited.
>
> Yet returns fully justified - thanks.

One of the warning signs of kookdom is that you take the disagreement of
others as a sign that you're correct.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/22/16 7:59 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 7:40 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 4/22/16 6:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
>>>>> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the
>>>>> real
>>>>> God.
>>>>
>>>> What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional
>>>> "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the
>>>> argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and
>>>> it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it
>>>> to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.
>>>
>>> My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
>>> aversion.
>>
>> "I'm right because I know I'm right. You must be wrong because, well,
>> I'm right."
>
> If you don't look for evidence of God, you won't find it. And if you
> then pretend that you have determined there's no God, then you are
> (barely) human garbage, and whatever "love" you think you have is just
> the hubris of the demoniac.

And what is your response when someone does look for evidence of God and
does not find it? Or when they look, find God, and She is not a bit
like you have portrayed?

You do know God is an evolutionist, do you not?

[Kalkidas]

There are no such people.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who
seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

[Bill]

Yet more assumption. If one assumes that nature fully explains itself
(mechanistic materialism) then the assumption of mechanistic materialism is
the only one considered - it is justified by default. If one assumes that
there is no supernatural being then such a being cannot explain anything.
Combining the two assumptions one can claim knowledge that does not exist
explains something unknown. The assumptions cannot be used to explain
themselves.

>
> Rejecting the assumptions of your magical model is an act of reason.
> Rejecting the assumption of science is an act of epistemic nihilism.

You're use of the concept, "Reason" is somewhat misleading in that it has
been modified to mean, suit the assumption of materialism. Anything else is
considered un-reason which automatically prejudices the discussion. Reason
is a consequence and process of thought and not the content of thought. The
idea of epistemic nihilism is that there is only one way to understand
things and anything else, being destructive to that belief, is necessarily,
false. Your whole approach is to belittle all possible objections before
there's any discussion.

Bill

[Steady Eddie]

Agreed.
But I'm curious, why do you choose the Bhagavad-gita as your authority?

[Steady Eddie]

The same thing you do with any clown -
Laugh at it or ignore it.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 12:09:00 UTC-6, Bill wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > On 4/21/16 5:26 PM, Bill wrote:
> >> par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from
> >>> the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others)
> >>> has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model
> >>> can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> >>> involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> >>
> >> A mechanistic model that explains the evolution of life as we know it,
> >> involving only random events and the known laws of biology is obviously
> >> possible but so are models of other kinds, magic for instance.
> >
> > Interesting. Please favor us with an outline of a magical model for the
> > evolution of life that some (any?) rational person might consider
> > "possible."
>
> A magical model might be: the universe poofed into existence. Life poofed
> into existence. Living things develop handy features to adapt to their
> environment. Life progresses from primitive to advanced in a convenient
> curve. Each step in this process is accompanied by all manner of
> explanations and these are considered correct simply because they are
> explanations.

+10
nuff sed

[Kalkidas]

The short answer: Because nearly all the people I have met in this world
who really resemble the Lord Jesus Christ in thoughts, words, and deeds
are followers of the Bhagavad-gita.

[Steady Eddie]

Excellent reason.

[jillery]

Apparently you take umbrage at having your comments associated with
nihilism. Like repetition, your feelings don't alter the veracity of
my comments.

>This is not the path to knowledge but ensures and inflexible dogma.

I acknowledge that you're an expert on inflexible dogma.

[Bill]

What do you suppose is the dogma I support?

Bill

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 15:54:00 UTC+3, מאת Bill Rogers:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 8:19:00 AM UTC-4, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > בתאריך יום חמישי, 21 באפריל 2016 בשעה 15:24:03 UTC+3, מאת Bill Rogers:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:14:05 AM UTC-4, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > בתאריך יום חמישי, 21 באפריל 2016 בשעה 00:34:05 UTC+3, מאת John Stockwell:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:19:06 AM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:

> > > > > > On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > At least, many poeple think so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b
> > > > > > y the w
> > > > > > ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
> > > > > > see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
> > > > > > think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
> > > > > > be made of the same types of materials as the "clock". The builder's
> > > > > > "hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
> > > > > > see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
> > > > > > explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
> > > > > > events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
> > > > > > as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
> > > > > > control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
> > > > > > comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
> > > > > > biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
> > > > > > able to control.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
> > > > > > God is intolerable to them.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
> > > > > > is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
> > > > > > God.
> > > > >
> > > > >

> > > > > Nope. The issue is that biology is in no way like human-manufactured items,
> > > > > first and foremost because organisms are self-replicating.
> > > > >
> > > > And if humans ever produce some self-replicating conmputer virus, or even a self-replicating machine, would that convince you that self-replication is irrelevant to the argument?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed the laws of biology differ from those of physics, in that they deal with self-replicating creatures. But this is irrelevant. The question is whether we can deduce ID from the laws themselves or their product.
> > > >
> > > > > If you want to claim that life is manufactured, then you must deliver the
> > > > > manufacturing process and show evidence that this manufacturing process
> > > > > has been applied. There is not a single case brought forward of a correct "intelligent design inference" that was not a case of known manufacturing
> > > > > and evidence of manufacture.
> > > > >
> > > > In other words, if I want to claim that clocks are manufactures, you require me to present the manufacturer and the blueprints of the process. If I fail to know the producer, or don't have the technical details of the process, you'll refuse to admit that clocks are designed.
> > > >
> > > > Let me restate my last sentence of my previous post:
> > > > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
> > > >
> > > > Suppose you find a really new kind of technology (the newest cellphone, or whatever). No one tells you who designed it (because no one knows it yet) or the process (it's a commercial secret). Won't you be able to deduce the existence of a designer who you never saw?
> > >
> > > OK. Think carefully about this example. What sort of thing am I supposed to be seeing. Is it really just a different, newer type of phone? Does it look like other phones? If not, what makes me think it is a phone? Can I make it work? If so, I infer there is a designer because it is very similar to other phones, and I know that people design, build and use phones.

> > >
> > Ok, so let's refine the example a bit. This newest cellphone is handed not to you, but to the most primitive tribe you can find in middle-Africa (or the Amazonas). They've never ever saw anything similar before, have no ideas of cellphones or technology at all. and didn't ever guess that humans can design anything more complicated than a sword.
> >
> > So the question of its appearance is irrelevant. But let's assume they succeed in operating it (maybe there's some sort of operation book included, since we can't trust their intuition). They operate it, and find they can communicate with many other people in the world, see maps of everything, send SMSs, surf the Web, set an alarm clock and many other functions.
>

> These primitive folks are able to read and understand the operating manual? Well, if they can read the manual, they have plenty in common with whoever made the phone, and they will likely deduce that somebody, somebody rather like them built it.
>

Not at all. Think of it again. An operating manual is much like health instructions: one can write a manual on how to use the fruits of a specific tree. How mouch to eat, at which hours, at which season, whether it's healthy for pregnant women or babies etc. etc. Detailed instructions shouldn't convince you that the designer of the tree is a human being rather like you.

The manual of the cellphone is just like this. It lists its functions, and tells you how to execute each of them, when's the best time of day to communicate with American folks, in contrast to Europeans, which buttons to click in order to set an alarm, etc. etc. It's only an operating guide, no more.

The manuals (the fruits manual and the cellphone's) are written in their native African language, of course. It doesn't mean the the designer(s) of the tree and/or cellphone even know of this language. I don't think they can deduce anything about the designer from the manuals themselves.

> >
> > These functions are surprisingly tailored to human beings. When speaking, the voice frequencies that are transmitted are these the mouth can produce and the ear can hear. The volume is comfortable to the ear. The light emmission of the screen is comfortable to the eye. The functions of the gadget are indeed very useful to humans. Its size is easy to handle, and the clicking device (some kind of keyboard?) fits the human fingers, etc. etc.
>

> And since it comes with a manual which they apparently can read and understand, they will likely conclude that the thing was built by people who have much in common with them.
>
At most they can deduce that regarding the writer(s) of the manuals. Conclussions about the designer(s) of the frees and cellphones are about to be concluded from the products themselves, not the manuals.

And if manuals still confuse you, suppose there're no manuals. Someone personally gives them the gadgets (and fruits), and orally explaines to them how to operate them, careful not to reveal any details about the designer, or the fact that they were designed. Happy now? don't stick to irrelevant details of the example.

> Analogously, if we someday sequence a genome and the DNA sequence spells out in some simple code an English language manual for how to operate a mitochondrion, then I'll be convinced that cells were designed. But I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
> >
> > Would they be able to deduce that some sort of intelligence is behind this all? (I assume of course they don't encounter any language barrier or other technical problem. Also, theoretically another option of design exists, namely, that the human body and needs were designed in accordance to the phone's specifications. But in this example, they happen to know it's not the case).
> >
> >
> > > Now, imagine the putative new technology looks nothing at all like any thing designed by a human; and it looks like nothing I've seen in nature. It has no function that I can figure out. It has no marks on it that look analogous to writing. It's not an obvious mineral formation or crystal. I'm just puzzled. I cannot infer a designer, because it's not remotely like anything made by any designer I've come across. But it sure does not look like anything I've seen in nature. At that point I just think it's very interesting, and I cannot draw a conclusion.
> > >
> > > If we knew that organisms were designed and manufactured, we could look at a new organism and infer that it, too, had been designed and manufactured. But we do not know that. That's the whole point of the argument. The ID argument is that living things are so similar to designed machines that they, too, must have been designed. I don't buy it, because we know of no designer that designs and builds organisms from scratch, much less whole ecosystems, but if you find it convincing, knock yourself out.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
> > > > > > >

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 18:29:00 UTC+3, מאת Mark Isaak:

I don't have time now for a detailed answer, so I'll give you just the essence.

When a person looks around, what s/he sees is a reflection of his\her own internal psychological structure. Some people are interested mainly in self-reproduction, along with fulfilling other basic bilogical needs. When analyzing the world, they'll tend to see this very kind of behavious in everything else. That would seem to them the basic flow of nature (with maybe a few exceptions).

Other people do indeed pay attention to their biological needs, but only because it's necessary. The main point of their life is intellectual, spiritual or whatever. They live to create, learn, improve etc. They do self-reproduce, but only as a means to achieve their goals (realizeing that some of their goals require more than one lifetime). The main function of humans beings, for them, is not self-reproduction nor is it a result of the need to self-reproduce. Then, when such people look on the world around them, they'll describe it in similar terms. Self-reproduction does exist, of course, but it's always a means and never an end.

Both descriptions are equally consistent (given that the person's psychology is consistent), and the choosing between them is a subject to the person's choice.

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 18:49:00 UTC+3, מאת Mark Isaak:

> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
> > were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
> > only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
> > (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
> > clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
> > or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
> > Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
>
> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
>

I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori, that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved, that is, not designed.

But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING, including rocks, is designed. The Designer gave us plenty of rocks, which are very useful for many applications, along with the wits to tailer them to our needs. It's like a modern programming platform, on which you can create many different applications.

You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.

I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.

[Bill Rogers]

The designer speaks my language. Writes in my script. My first assumption is that the designer is a person rather like me. But perhaps that's not how it works for you. Perhaps when you look over the manual for a new appliance, the first thought that comes to your mind is that a super-intelligent alien wrote it.

> The manual of the cellphone is just like this. It lists its functions, and tells you how to execute each of them, when's the best time of day to communicate with American folks, in contrast to Europeans, which buttons to click in order to set an alarm, etc. etc. It's only an operating guide, no more.

It's an operating guide in *my language.* My first assumption will be that somebody who spoke my language wrote it. And the only people I know who speak my language are human beings.

>
> The manuals (the fruits manual and the cellphone's) are written in their native African language, of course. It doesn't mean the the designer(s) of the tree and/or cellphone even know of this language. I don't think they can deduce anything about the designer from the manuals themselves.

How could the designer prepare a manual in a language without knowing of the language?

>
> > >
> > > These functions are surprisingly tailored to human beings. When speaking, the voice frequencies that are transmitted are these the mouth can produce and the ear can hear. The volume is comfortable to the ear. The light emmission of the screen is comfortable to the eye. The functions of the gadget are indeed very useful to humans. Its size is easy to handle, and the clicking device (some kind of keyboard?) fits the human fingers, etc. etc.
> >
> > And since it comes with a manual which they apparently can read and understand, they will likely conclude that the thing was built by people who have much in common with them.
> >
> At most they can deduce that regarding the writer(s) of the manuals. Conclussions about the designer(s) of the frees and cellphones are about to be concluded from the products themselves, not the manuals.

No, the conclusion will be based on the manual. It's part of the package. Take away the manual and it's just a strange object of unknown provenance and no detectable function.

>
> And if manuals still confuse you, suppose there're no manuals. Someone personally gives them the gadgets (and fruits), and orally explaines to them how to operate them, careful not to reveal any details about the designer, or the fact that they were designed. Happy now? don't stick to irrelevant details of the example.

Then I just ask them where the damn thing came from.

You are imagining an incoherent example, and the details of the examples are not irrelevant at all. You postulate something whose function we mysteriously intuit or which is explained to us in our native language. If we can guess the function, we do so by hypothesizing that somebody made it who likes to perform that function, just as we do, and we conclude that whoever made it is similar to us. You want to hypothesize some infinitely advanced technology, in order to guarantee that the inference to a human designer is implausible. Yet you simultaneously want to hypothesize that we can see the purpose of that technology. But if we can see the purpose of the technology, then it is not so far advanced that hypothesizing a human or human-like designer is unreasonable.

The simple question is this. Is a cell so much like a machine designed by humans, even if it is more complex and subtle than anything we can build, that we should, on the strength of that similarity, conclude that cells are designed. And that we should conclude that in the absence of any evidence, other than the presence of cells themselves, of a designer capable of designing and building cells from scratch. That's just a judgement call. You can make that call if you want to. I think it's going way beyond the evidence, but I certainly cannot prove you're wrong. Moreover, if you are willing to hypothesize a designer who did his design work by designing a universe with natural laws and initial conditions that would eventually lead to the emergence and evolution of like, then I cannot see how such a view could ever be disproved. And you can take that to the bank, er.... church.

[Mark Isaak]

That is not true. Or at least, you extrapolate the grain of truth in it
into a fictional monstrosity.

> Some people are interested
> mainly in self-reproduction, along with fulfilling other basic
> bilogical needs. When analyzing the world, they'll tend to see this
> very kind of behavious in everything else. That would seem to them the
> basic flow of nature (with maybe a few exceptions).

[snip more psychobabble which has nothing to do with my point]

There are real, objectively observable properties which are generally
true of designed things. That they do not self-reproduce is one of
them. That remains true whether a eunuch, hussy, or anyone else is looking.

[Thrinaxodon]

par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
>
> At least, many poeple think so.
>
> But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
>
> Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b
y the w
ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
>

> This is similar to Evolution, in which random events, with the laws of biology, produced the variety of life forms we observe.
>
> Is the presentation of a mechanistic model enough to deduce that no Intelligent Design is present? if so, one can deduce that the clock isn't designed. On the other hand, if one can prove that the clock was designed, despite the mechanistic model and the fact that no natural laws were violated in the process of its production, then one can apply the very same proof to Evolution.
>

> (Some people really seem to be unable to deduce a clock's design, without prior knowledge. They have to be told that clocks were designed. I don't address such people).
>

Wow, another reference to an inanimate object. Clocks don't reproduce,
simple as that.

--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org

[Mark Isaak]

I know for a fact that there are. Don't try to tell me that the sky is
green when I can see with my own eyes that it is blue.

> "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
> door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who
> seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

What that verse fails to mention is that what you find is sometimes a
blankness; sometimes there is nothing behind the door. And sometimes
what you find is radically different from what someone else, asking the
same question, finds. And sometimes what you find does not, in fact,
exist, except in your own imagination.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/23/16 1:57 PM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 18:49:00 UTC+3, מאת Mark Isaak:
>> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
>>> were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
>>> only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
>>> (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
>>> clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
>>> or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
>>> Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
>>
>> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
>> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
>> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
>> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
>> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
>>
> I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your
> attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori,
> that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved,
> that is, not designed.
>
> But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING,
> including rocks, is designed.

Ah, so "designed", in fact, means nothing at all. It is an empty pair
of syllables which distinguishes nothing from anything else.

> You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed
> to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on
> that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect
> them to answer questions based on your point of view.

Okay, they are not invalid. Your conclusions are utterly meaningless
and entirely useless, but they are every bit as valid as declaring, "All
x are A, where x is defined to be A."

> I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed,
> and for the rest we simply don't know.

And when your teacher asked you to add 17 + 55, you went up to the
blackboard, announced, "The starting point is that we know 17 and 55
need to be added, and for the rest we simply don't know," and returned
to your seat.

What you fail to appreciate is that some people have taken steps beyond
the starting point. Obviously you will never be one of them.

[Kalkidas]

Because you asked for blankness.

And sometimes
> what you find is radically different from what someone else, asking the
> same question, finds.

Because you valued being different more than being right.

And sometimes what you find does not, in fact,
> exist, except in your own imagination.

You asked for it, brother.

[Steady Eddie]

Incisive observation.
So, the designer of life must be much more intelligent than the designer of clocks.

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:

>?????? ??? ????, 22 ?????? 2016 ???? 18:49:00 UTC+3, ??? Mark Isaak:

>> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
>> > were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
>> > only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
>> > (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
>> > clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
>> > or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
>> > Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
>>
>> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
>> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
>> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
>> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
>> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
>>
>I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori, that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved, that is, not designed.
>
>But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING, including rocks, is designed. The Designer gave us plenty of rocks, which are very useful for many applications, along with the wits to tailer them to our needs. It's like a modern programming platform, on which you can create many different applications.

If everything is designed, then you're arguing about a nonexistent
distinction.

>You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.
>
>I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.

That's called begging the question, which is an ending point.

>> Some people seem to jump directly to the conclusion that it must be
>> designed if it moves under its own power, but as some of the examples
>> above show, that is not necessarily so. See if you can come up with
>> good answers to those questions.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
>> intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
>> understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
>

[jillery]

Since you asked, that would be the dogma of incoherent assumptions
and/or pointless platitudes.

HTH but I doubt it.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016 23:08:55 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >?????? ??? ????, 22 ?????? 2016 ???? 18:49:00 UTC+3, ??? Mark Isaak:
> >> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
> >> > were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
> >> > only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
> >> > (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
> >> > clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
> >> > or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
> >> > Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
> >>
> >> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
> >> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
> >> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
> >> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
> >> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
> >>
> >I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori, that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved, that is, not designed.
> >
> >But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING, including rocks, is designed. The Designer gave us plenty of rocks, which are very useful for many applications, along with the wits to tailer them to our needs. It's like a modern programming platform, on which you can create many different applications.
>
>
> If everything is designed, then you're arguing about a nonexistent
> distinction.

It's not a "distinction".
'Being designed' is a condition throughout this physical universe.

> >You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.
> >
> >I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.
>
>
> That's called begging the question, which is an ending point.

I challenge that assertion.
What is the false premise the statement is assuming?
That we know some things are designed, or that for the rest we simply don't know?

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016 23:08:55 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >?????? ??? ????, 22 ?????? 2016 ???? 18:49:00 UTC+3, ??? Mark Isaak:
> >> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
> >> > were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
> >> > only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
> >> > (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
> >> > clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
> >> > or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
> >> > Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
> >>
> >> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
> >> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
> >> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
> >> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
> >> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?

Uh... Designed things can evolve, dude.
Sorry to burst your bubble...

> >I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori, that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved, that is, not designed.
> >
> >But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING, including rocks, is designed. The Designer gave us plenty of rocks, which are very useful for many applications, along with the wits to tailer them to our needs. It's like a modern programming platform, on which you can create many different applications.
>
>
> If everything is designed, then you're arguing about a nonexistent
> distinction.
>
>
> >You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.
> >
> >I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.
>
>
> That's called begging the question, which is an ending point.
>
>
> >> Some people seem to jump directly to the conclusion that it must be
> >> designed if it moves under its own power, but as some of the examples
> >> above show, that is not necessarily so. See if you can come up with
> >> good answers to those questions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> >> "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
> >> intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
> >> understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
> >
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

...But your NEED to find something UNdesigned in the universe is blinding
you to the possibility that EVERYTHING in this physical universe is designed, or developed through a
designed process of some kind.

[jillery]

So the designer of life must be so much more intelligent than the
designer of clocks, the latter can't possibly design clocks like the
former design's life, thus refuting Paley's Watchmaker Analogy, the
basis of ID and natural theology. Way to go, Steadly.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 22:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 23 April 2016 23:08:55 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >?????? ??? ????, 22 ?????? 2016 ???? 18:49:00 UTC+3, ??? Mark Isaak:
>> >> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
>> >> > were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
>> >> > only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
>> >> > (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
>> >> > clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
>> >> > or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
>> >> > Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
>> >>
>> >> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
>> >> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
>> >> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
>> >> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
>> >> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
>
>Uh... Designed things can evolve, dude.
>Sorry to burst your bubble...

I didn't post that. Mark Isaak did. And what does your statement
have to do with his comments?

>> >I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori, that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved, that is, not designed.
>> >
>> >But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING, including rocks, is designed. The Designer gave us plenty of rocks, which are very useful for many applications, along with the wits to tailer them to our needs. It's like a modern programming platform, on which you can create many different applications.
>>
>>
>> If everything is designed, then you're arguing about a nonexistent
>> distinction.
>>
>>
>> >You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.
>> >
>> >I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.
>>
>>
>> That's called begging the question, which is an ending point.
>>
>>
>> >> Some people seem to jump directly to the conclusion that it must be
>> >> designed if it moves under its own power, but as some of the examples
>> >> above show, that is not necessarily so. See if you can come up with
>> >> good answers to those questions.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> >> "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
>> >> intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
>> >> understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
>> >
>

>...But your NEED to find something UNdesigned in the universe is blinding
>you to the possibility that EVERYTHING in this physical universe is designed, or developed through a
>designed process of some kind.

Make up your mind. Either everything is designed, or only some things
are designed, which means some things are not. You can't coherently
argue both ways.

[jillery]

Even if true, that's not the same thing as "everything is designed".

>> >You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect them to answer questions based on your point of view.
>> >
>> >I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed, and for the rest we simply don't know.
>>
>>
>> That's called begging the question, which is an ending point.
>
>I challenge that assertion.
>What is the false premise the statement is assuming?
>That we know some things are designed, or that for the rest we simply don't know?

Both statements assume his conclusions. That's called "begging the
question".

Also, both statements contradict his previous conclusion, that all
things are designed. That's called "incoherent".

Finally the relevant question is not *if* some things are designed,
but how to distinguish design from non-design. That's called a
"non-sequitur".

That's enough school for today. I don't want to overstress you again.

[SortingItOut]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 8:24:01 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 9:50 PM, SortingItOut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

> >> On 4/20/2016 12:44 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Prior to Darwin, people were compelled to induce Intelligent Design from the structure of biological creatures in the world. Darwing (and others) has shown that this conclussion isn't necessary, as a mechanistic model can be proposed that explains the evolution of life as we know it, involving only random events and the known laws of biology.
> >>>
> >>> At least, many poeple think so.
> >>>
> >>> But even if everything Darwin said about mechanistic model is correct, it still doesn't touch the subject of Intelligent Design, as can be demonstrated by a simple example.
> >>>

> >>> Consider you observe me building a clock. I take various parts, combine them, screw a few screws, and eventually I have a working clock. Now, a completely mechanistic model can be proposed for the process. Each piece of metal moves exactly according to the forces applied on it, according to the well-known laws of mechanics. Each force is generated by my hands, and that can explained too by science, as the laws of electromagnetism are well-known. Now, what caused my hands to move? nerval signals, of course, and they too obey the well-known laws of nature. Eventually it all started in my brain. Now, we don't know enough about the brain, but for the sake of discussion we'll ignore this technical point, and assume we know exactly the position and momentum of every particle in the brain at every moment (in the limits of Heisenberg, of course). Thus, it has all started by many (quantum) random events, each of which obeys definite laws of probability, and from there it continued b

> >> y the w
> >> ell-known laws of electromagnetism and mechanics, to produce the clock.
> >>

> >> The situation of the evolutionists, and all materialists, is that they
> >> see the "clock" being built but they don't see the builder, because they
> >> think that any builder must be "clock-like" himself, and therefore must
> >> be made of the same types of materials as the "clock".
> >

> > No, it's just that there's no evidence for a non-material builder, or any other non-material entity.
>
> Yes there is. As I said, you haven't looked for it because you don't
> expect to find it. Your prophecy is self-fulfilling.

I spent a good part of my life expecting to find it. Never did. I went from believer to non-believer after a long slow process of realizing it was all imaginary. Possibly true? yes. But for the time being still imaginary.

>
> > Imaginary entities are not an "explanation".
>
> And no one has ever proposed an "imaginary entity" as an explanation of
> the origin of species.

Imagined entities don't become real as a result of being used as a possible explanation for some mystery.

>
> >> The builder's
> >> "hands" are indeed applying force to the "clock" pieces, but they don't
> >> see any "hands", since "hands" are not "clock-like". So they try to
> >> explain the origin of the force in another way, by postulating "random
> >> events, with the laws of biology", which they fail to realize are just
> >> as invisible, mystical, and abstract as the notion of an invisible builder.
> >

> > There's no evidence anything magical is occurring, or has occurred.
>
> "Random events" are magical. So are "the laws of biology". You can
> produce tangible, physical examples of neither.

>
> >> It's the idea of a *person* they can't -- and never will be able to --
> >> control building the "clock" that they don't like. They are more
> >> comfortable with impersonal, blind "random events, with the laws of
> >> biology", which they can at least imagine and hope they will someday be
> >> able to control.
> >>
> >> They want to be God themselves, and therefore the existence of any real
> >> God is intolerable to them.
> >

> > I don't know any materialist that thinks this way. Do you?
>
> Yes, you think that way. The proof is that you prematurely claim there's
> no evidence for God or any non-material entities, yet you haven't looked
> for any evidence. Those who have looked for such evidence have found it.

Did they actually find it, or just assume it as an explanation? Can the evidence be corroborated by scientific processes?

>
> Therefore, since your approach is so obviously irrational, it indicates
> a psychological problem. Your reason is damaged.

Just trying to establish reality. What is imaginary and what is real. Your evaluation of my process is clearly speculative and therefore meaningless.

>
> >> That is the real reason behind the so-called "theory" of evolution. It
> >> is just another concocted mystical doctrine in competition with the real
> >> God.
> >
> > What you apparently fail to realize is that claims of emotional "motivation" or "bias" work equally well on both sides of the argument. You see God everywhere because it makes you feel good, and it makes you feel superior to others, and you're so desperate for it to be true because you're not emotionally equipped to handle reality.
>
> My emotional motivation is better than yours, as love is better than
> aversion.

Yeah, I see your "love" in a later response. Kind of scary. Very Inquisition-like.

My only aversion is to speculation and assumed conclusions. And, of course, threats of harm from believers. My many years of being a believer is evidence enough of my lack of aversion to God.

The best emotional motivation is *no* emotional motivation.

Calling people human garbage because they fail to agree with you is the best way to cast serious doubt on your own conclusions. Evidence works much better. Why is it so elusive?

>
> > See how that works? What do claims like that accomplish? Wouldn't it be better to set all that nonsense aside and actually look at the evidence?
>
> Go ahead, look at the evidence. I already have.
>

[Mark Isaak]

Then we are agreed. The existence of God depends not on God existing,
but on some people's choosing to think Gods exist.

[Kalkidas]

No. The existence of God is not dependent at all. God *is* existence. It
is impossible in principle for existence not to exist.

Therefore, He is the source of *all* arguments and *all* evidence,
whether for or against His existence!

[RAM]

Hmm.

>
> Therefore, He is the source of *all* arguments and *all* evidence,
> whether for or against His existence!

So if evil exists and there is "evidence" for it, then He is the source of all evil. Sounds compelling.

[Kalkidas]

Yes. If God is really God, then there cannot be some second thing
independently operating beyond His purview. He is the sole source of
everything. And for those who wish to be evil, He supplies them with
everything they need to be evil (including the inevitable destruction
that awaits evildoers).

[RAM]

Hmm.

So he is the sole source of "everything" including my wishes and my evil. That says I can't choose my destiny. Sounds more compelling.

[Kalkidas]

You are choosing your destiny. The proof is that you are experiencing
the acts of choosing and yourself as the chooser. All destinies are
created by the Lord, so those are the options from which you choose.

[Earle Jones27]

>> the origin of species...

[...]

*
You haven't read Genesis 1:1.

earle
*

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/24/16 9:11 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 7:55 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/23/16 6:03 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2016 5:19 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/16 1:26 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

>>>> [...]

>>>>> "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
>>>>> the
>>>>> door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one
>>>>> who
>>>>> seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
>>>>
>>>> What that verse fails to mention is that what you find is sometimes a
>>>> blankness; sometimes there is nothing behind the door.
>>>
>>> Because you asked for blankness.
>>>
>>>> And sometimes
>>>> what you find is radically different from what someone else, asking the
>>>> same question, finds.
>>>
>>> Because you valued being different more than being right.
>>>
>>>> And sometimes what you find does not, in fact,
>>>> exist, except in your own imagination.
>>>
>>> You asked for it, brother.
>>
>> Then we are agreed. The existence of God depends not on God existing,
>> but on some people's choosing to think Gods exist.
>
> No. The existence of God is not dependent at all. God *is* existence. It
> is impossible in principle for existence not to exist.

Ah. By definition, everything is God. So when you argue against
materialistic science, you are arguing against God.

[Kalkidas]

No. It is not commutative. God is everything, but everything is not God.

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 24 באפריל 2016 בשעה 00:33:56 UTC+3, מאת Bill Rogers:

Again you miss the point. There's no reason to assume that the designer is the writer of the manual, or that said writer knows the designer at all. Doctors can write manuals on how to use fruits, when and how much to eat, whether or not to fry or bake them, but it doesn't mean the doctors are the designers of the fruits, or even know the designer, or even know that there is one. Please read again my last post, with that in mind.

(Theoretically one can figure out the correct usage of an object, along with its possible functions, without any manual or any other external help. That's how the doctors figured out the healthiest way to use the world. The reason I use manuals in the example is that I cannot trust the tribe's intuition about cellphones, but it's only a technical detail).

[Bill Rogers]

OK, well go ahead with your point, then. We'll assume some non-technological human being in New Guinea or the Amazon comes upon a cell phone and figures out how to call somebody on it. He may very well conclude, wrongly, that it's a magical gift from the gods.

How would that help you make the argument that cells are designed?

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 24 באפריל 2016 בשעה 03:48:55 UTC+3, מאת Mark Isaak:

> On 4/23/16 1:57 PM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > בתאריך יום שישי, 22 באפריל 2016 בשעה 18:49:00 UTC+3, מאת Mark Isaak:
> >> On 4/22/16 5:23 AM, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> And by the way, I never claimed that anyone thinks that clock
> >>> were not designed. I did argue, however, that some people are
> >>> only able to infer that fact from comparison to other
> >>> (known-to-be-designed) gadgets, or from prior knowledge that
> >>> clocks are designed. That is, given a clock and no other prior
> >>> or external knowledge, they won't reach this conclusion.
> >>> Its functionality and usefulness mean nothing to them.
> >>
> >> Have you ever given serious thought to this question? What do designed
> >> things have in common? (Consider a cell phone, a bagel, a golf course,
> >> a paper clip, a monster truck, and "Purple Rain") How are they
> >> different from evolved things (consider a goldfish, a sequoia, kelp, and
> >> E. coli)? How are they similar? And why?
> >>
> > I still don't have time for a detailed answer, so I'll just turn your
> > attention to the fact that you beg the question. You assume, a priori,
> > that some objects are designed while others (creatures?) are evolved,
> > that is, not designed.
> >
> > But you realize that for those who believe in ID, then EVERYTHING,
> > including rocks, is designed.
>
> Ah, so "designed", in fact, means nothing at all. It is an empty pair
> of syllables which distinguishes nothing from anything else.
>

Depends on what point of the arguemnt we are. The starting point, again, is that some things we know are designed, and for other we don't know, and we hypothese that non-design is an option. Here, the distinction between designed and not designed is clear (but its properties have to be investigated, of course).

The end point, after we successfully prove ID, is that indeed everything is designed, and not the distinction between designed and undesigned doesn't exist in nature (but still holds some theoretical value).

Even at the starting point, you must realize that my end point is a possible outcome of the query, so you can't assume a priori its nagation, that is, you can't assume a priori that there exist things which are undesigned. Keep in mind that no one yet has shown eny evidence of an undesigned thing (although many people ASSUME it).

> > You can argue with that assumption, of course, but you're not allowed
> > to assume a priori its negation. Any conclussions you draw, based on
> > that assumption, are invalid for any ID-believer, so you can't expect
> > them to answer questions based on your point of view.
>
> Okay, they are not invalid. Your conclusions are utterly meaningless
> and entirely useless, but they are every bit as valid as declaring, "All
> x are A, where x is defined to be A."
>
> > I think the starting point is that we know some things are designed,
> > and for the rest we simply don't know.
>
> And when your teacher asked you to add 17 + 55, you went up to the
> blackboard, announced, "The starting point is that we know 17 and 55
> need to be added, and for the rest we simply don't know," and returned
> to your seat.
>

I never said I remain in the starting point. I emphasized that it's inly a starting point. We'll go a bit beyond that in my next post. But the starting point is imporant, again, to realize what's a fact and what's an assumption, and who's begging the question. I think you understand that.

[par...@yahoo.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 25 באפריל 2016 בשעה 15:48:51 UTC+3, מאת Bill Rogers:

So we agree that the conclussion of design is essencial (the question of the identity of the deisgner, whether it is a human or a god, is another one). That's enough for us. If we conclude that cells are deisgned, plus the knowledge that humans didn't design it, I think that concludes the discussion.