Challenge for Seanpit
Ken Shackleton
If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
addressed....not even the attempt:
Perhaps you can help out...
1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
question?
3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
dwib...@gmail.com
God only knows!!!!
:-) Dwib
Ray Martinez
The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
target question - # 5.
Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer
with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper.
I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> question?
It depends on how you define methodology. IF you are using the standard
human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
1.
> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
power resides.
> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
References available upon request.
> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
"It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
synonymously:
Unmeasureable intelligence and power. This nature can only be gauged
and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
power. That would be genius human designers.
Comparison:
How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
smallest storage structure ?
Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
human cell.
The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
cell.
Ray
Mitch...@aol.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Scientifically, God has chosen
> the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself,
Such as hiding so carefully that there is absolutely no trace of him in
any physical evidence left on the planet?
> also, and synonymously:
>
> Unmeasureable intelligence and power.
Unmeasurable because it is so small that we can't find any, or
unmearsureble because it is so big that it does not fit in our universe?
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Seanpit;
> >
> > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > addressed....not even the attempt:
> >
> > Perhaps you can help out...
> >
> > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> >
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
> >
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> >
> > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> >
> > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> target question - # 5.
Not really....I wanted to know if there was any scientific attempt at
an answer....thanks for confirming that there is no science in
ID....and that it is simply a religious position.
Ken
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Seanpit;
>
> If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> does....
Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
> there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> addressed....not even the attempt:
>
> Perhaps you can help out...
>
> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
What criteria do you us to come up with any design that you come up
with?
> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> question?
If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself. Knowing how any
designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
deliberate intelligent intent. Do you need to know how to make an
airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
you see one? Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
deliberately designed.
> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
detect deliberate design.
> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
There are lots of design processes going on today - all over the place.
You yourself are a creative designer. If you are asking if God is at
work today, as far as changing and redesigning living things - I
personally don't think so. I see it much like a maker of robots who put
together the machinery for the robots to reproduce themselves so that
recreation/design is not necessary from that point onward. The
functional systems of everything that we see today in living things
were present in the very first living things.
> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
Personally I believe that God is not the only intelligent designer that
has been involved with manipulating the genetic codes of living things.
I do not think everything that we see now is in accordance with its
original design and purpose. It is much like a razor blade cut through
a tire on your car. You can tell that the tire was designed for a
particular purpose, which didn't include the razor blade cut.
Depending on the cut, you might also be able to tell that the razor
blade cut was also deliberate, the result of design that is at odds
with the intent of the original designer. It seems to me that this
sort of thing is happening in nature.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > Seanpit;
> > >
> > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > > addressed....not even the attempt:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can help out...
> > >
> > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> > >
> > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > question?
> > >
> > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > >
> > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> > >
> > > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
> >
> > The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> > target question - # 5.
>
> Not really....I wanted to know if there was any scientific attempt at
> an answer....thanks for confirming that there is no science in
> ID....and that it is simply a religious position.
>
> Ken
>
IOW, you were dishonest like I pointed out.
Like I predicted Ken relied on atheistic/non-religious philosophical
assumptions, packaged in a scientific wrapper
Previous prediction:
"Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer
with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper."
Could one expect an atheo-Darwinist to do anything else ?
Ken is insisting that his atheism with all of its senseless starting
assumptions to be held as fact/"science".
ToE = atheism: my only point.
At least religious persons are open and honest unlike Ken attempting to
hide his philosophical bias by hijacking science. We are religious
because of the evidence.
Ray
Ken Shackleton
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Seanpit;
> >
> > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > does....
>
> Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
> where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
> a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
I was referring to questions that naturally rise out of the ID
premise....not the design of human artefacts.
>
> > there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > addressed....not even the attempt:
> >
> > Perhaps you can help out...
> >
> > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
> What criteria do you us to come up with any design that you come up
> with?
Not really and answer....is it? I want to know what the ID proponents
believe is the design criteria used by the designer?
>
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
>
> If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself.
Designing the lifeform and building it are two separate things. I can
design an electronic circuit....but unless I know how to build the
components....I'm screwed...unless I can get someone else to build the
components for me.
Perhaps the designer contracts that part out...
> Knowing how any
> designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
> understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
> deliberate intelligent intent.
Yes...it is...
> Do you need to know how to make an
> airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
> you see one?
I would be able to investigate the process by dismantling the
aircraft....has any ID proponent dismantled a lifeform to investigate
the design and build techniques?
> Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
> they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
> deliberately designed.
>
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
> Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
> detect deliberate design.
Of course it is....but what you are really saying is that once you have
determined to your satisfaction that ID is the cause....then all
further investigation stops....
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > > Seanpit;
> > > >
> > > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > > > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > > > addressed....not even the attempt:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can help out...
> > > >
> > > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> > > >
> > > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > > question?
> > > >
> > > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > > >
> > > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> > > >
> > > > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
> > >
> > > The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> > > target question - # 5.
> >
> > Not really....I wanted to know if there was any scientific attempt at
> > an answer....thanks for confirming that there is no science in
> > ID....and that it is simply a religious position.
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
> IOW, you were dishonest like I pointed out.
What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
>
> Like I predicted Ken relied on atheistic/non-religious philosophical
> assumptions, packaged in a scientific wrapper
At some point...the designer has to actually build something....I was
wondering if the ID proponents have made any headway to figure out
*how* that was accomplished. Does ID even care? Seems not....
Tracy P. Hamilton
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Seanpit;
> >
> > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > does....
> > Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
> where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
> a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
He can answer the 5 questions he gave, that is how he knows. Now can
you answer those questions?
>
> > there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > addressed....not even the attempt:
> >
> > Perhaps you can help out...
> >
> > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
> What criteria do you us to come up with any design that you come up
> with?
It depends on the design specs. For devices that perform a function,
that it works as well as possible.
Not like the appendix, by the way.
1 evasion.
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
>
> If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself. Knowing how any
> designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
> understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
> deliberate intelligent intent. Do you need to know how to make an
> airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
> you see one?
> Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
> they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
> deliberately designed.
Translation: No, I don't know.
We know how metal is MADE, and fashioned, so these objects
fall into these categories. The same goes for crop circles, which were
crops
that resulted from external, DIRECTIONAL forces. Result:
1 utter failure to think about how people REALLY detect design.
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
> Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
> detect deliberate design.
2 utter failures - to think about how crop circles and artificial
objects are
made (by artifice) tells us they are made.
> > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>
> There are lots of design processes going on today - all over the place.
> You yourself are a creative designer. If you are asking if God is at
> work today, as far as changing and redesigning living things - I
> personally don't think so.
1 direct answer - No.
Is there reason to think this designer is still alive?
What about the changes we do see?
> > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> Personally I believe that God is not the only intelligent designer that
> has been involved with manipulating the genetic codes of living things.
> I do not think everything that we see now is in accordance with its
> original design and purpose. It is much like a razor blade cut through
> a tire on your car. You can tell that the tire was designed for a
> particular purpose, which didn't include the razor blade cut.
> Depending on the cut, you might also be able to tell that the razor
> blade cut was also deliberate, the result of design that is at odds
> with the intent of the original designer. It seems to me that this
> sort of thing is happening in nature.
Ah, Satan as the designer! Or is it Xenu? Have you been tested for
thetans
yet?
2 direct answers - another no (at least based on design theory), but a
yes
based on results. So narrowing the opening of the appendix must have
been Satan's slashing.
Tracy P. Hamilton
noctiluca
>
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
>
> If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself. Knowing how any
> designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
> understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
> deliberate intelligent intent.
There is a simple way to demonstrate the truth of this assertion -
cite, or hypothesize an example of a scientific inference to
intelligent design that can be made without any knowledge of the
designer. Describe this "design" using arguments that neither
directly nor indirectly suggest methods, motives or the nature of the
designer.
No, the spaceship/airplane/human design example won't fly. An ID
inference is not to human, or even natural, agency. It is to something
for which we have no cues, no informational landmarks, quite unlike the
wealth of experience we draw upon when looking at something such as an
airplane.
The analogy with human design is a dodge, and until its inconsistencies
are addressed those who use it are being disingenuous.
> Do you need to know how to make an
> airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
> you see one? Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
> they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
> deliberately designed.
By humans.
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
> Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
> detect deliberate design.
Then answering my question above should pose no problem.
> > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>
> There are lots of design processes going on today - all over the place.
> You yourself are a creative designer. If you are asking if God is at
> work today, as far as changing and redesigning living things - I
> personally don't think so. I see it much like a maker of robots who put
> together the machinery for the robots to reproduce themselves so that
> recreation/design is not necessary from that point onward. The
> functional systems of everything that we see today in living things
> were present in the very first living things.
Raw, unfounded wishful thinking.
> > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> Personally I believe that God is not the only intelligent designer that
> has been involved with manipulating the genetic codes of living things.
> I do not think everything that we see now is in accordance with its
> original design and purpose. It is much like a razor blade cut through
> a tire on your car. You can tell that the tire was designed for a
> particular purpose, which didn't include the razor blade cut.
> Depending on the cut, you might also be able to tell that the razor
> blade cut was also deliberate, the result of design that is at odds
> with the intent of the original designer. It seems to me that this
> sort of thing is happening in nature.
Is the designer of living things not also the designer of nature? If
so, in what sense is it logical to conclude all has not gone according
to the designer's wishes?
Robert
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
eerok
[...]
> ToE = atheism: my only point.
Which stands as good evidence that you have no point ... as if
any more evidence were needed.
> At least religious persons are open and honest unlike Ken
> attempting to hide his philosophical bias by hijacking
> science. We are religious because of the evidence.
Methodological naturalism and the principle of parsimony
(which define the limits of science in practice) are problems
only for creationists and others who want to coopt the patina
of scientific credibility without accepting the rigourous
standards that give such credibility meaning.
As for the open and honest religious people I know, they're
not gibbering nonsensical apologies on usenet: they accept
that the ToE is science, and they accept that science is not
inimical to their faith.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
.
neutr...@gmail.com
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Seanpit;
>
> If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> addressed....not even the attempt:
>
> Perhaps you can help out...
I'll try...
> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
ID answer: "Is it complex enough that we don't understand it?"
My answer: "Did it work?"
> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> question?
ID answer: "Designer only knows; we could not comprehend it anyway."
My answer: "Combine code from two working specimins, see if it works
better than the parents. For monosexual species, just make some random
changes in the offspring; see if it works better."
> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
Same answer, both times.
> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
ID answer: "No. This is the way the world was designed."
My answer: "Yes. Absolutely. With every new generation."
> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
ID answer: "For that, you'll have to talk to a priest. We just do
science (wink wink).
My answer: "Can we file a neglegance suit?"
Ken Shackleton
Atheism? I prefer to imagine God as being able to construct a universe
that can operate by a set of rules that do not require constant
tweaking. I believe that God would be able to build a universe that
functions perfectly, and naturally, by the rules that He
constructed....rather than needing constant maintenance like some
tired, old, rusty Ford Pinto.
An omnipotent God can create a universe in which He can simultaneously
grant us Free Will....yet still have things turn out according to His
Plan.....
My God can create a universe that functions.....your god drives the
Pinto.
Ken
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > Seanpit;
> > >
> > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > > does....
> >
> > Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> > when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
> > where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
> > a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
>
> I was referring to questions that naturally rise out of the ID
> premise....not the design of human artefacts.
ID is based on the ability to distinguish deliberate vs. non-deliberate
design of any kind. ID does not propose to show who, why, or how the
designer made living things. ID theory only proposes that all living
things were in fact deliberately designed and made.
It is a common fallacy held by many evolutionists that the detection of
design requires knowledge of motive and process. This just isn't true.
All that is required is knowledge of the limits of non-intelligent
processes. That's it.
For example, humans can and do design amorphous rocks - but so do
non-intelligent processes. Therefore, when you see an amorphous rock
you do not automatically assume human design because you know of
non-intelligent processes that can create something very similar. This
is not true when you see a polished perfectly symmetrical granite cube.
But why not? Why do you automatically assume human design in this case?
Because you know that no other non-intelligent process does such
things to granite - not even close. You don't need to know how or why
the designer made this granite cube to know that it was designed. Even
if you were somewhere else in the universe, on some alien planet, and
you saw such a granite cube you would know that it was designed.
> > > there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > > addressed....not even the attempt:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can help out...
> > >
> > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> >
> > What criteria do you us to come up with any design that you come up
> > with?
>
> Not really and answer....is it? I want to know what the ID proponents
> believe is the design criteria used by the designer?
Very similar criteria that you use to design and create stuff.
> > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > question?
> >
> > If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself.
>
> Designing the lifeform and building it are two separate things. I can
> design an electronic circuit....but unless I know how to build the
> components....I'm screwed...unless I can get someone else to build the
> components for me.
If you can actually design an electronic circuit, getting the
components made is a very small part of the problem. If I could design
a life form, the parts are abundant - not a problem to get the needed
parts together.
> Perhaps the designer contracts that part out...
Perhaps? But who cares? Really now, it doesn't matter. The answer to
this question is not needed in order to detect design.
> > Knowing how any
> > designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
> > understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
> > deliberate intelligent intent.
>
> Yes...it is...
No. . . it isn't . . . (see above)
> > Do you need to know how to make an
> > airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
> > you see one?
>
> I would be able to investigate the process by dismantling the
> aircraft....
Have you done that? Do you know how to make an aircraft or a CD
player? Do you really have to do that in order to be able to
reasonably hypothesize design when you see such systems?
> has any ID proponent dismantled a lifeform to investigate
> the design and build techniques?
Yes - Ever heard of designer genes? Humans are in fact capable of
designing and creating genes and inserting them into living things.
But, of course, you would be unable to tell that intelligent
manipulation had been going on in such cases - right?
> > Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
> > they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
> > deliberately designed.
> >
> > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> >
> > Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
> > detect deliberate design.
>
> Of course it is....but what you are really saying is that once you have
> determined to your satisfaction that ID is the cause....then all
> further investigation stops....
Do you know the methodology of how your television was created?
Really? If you do not yet know, do you therefore believe that your
television probably resulted from a mindless cause? If not, if you
believe your television really was designed, yet you do not yet know
the methodology to the point where you could make one yourself, upon
what basis do you believe in television design?
What you are proposing is that a mindless origin is the most likely
cause of all things unknown, by default, until everything about the
designer, to include the hows and the whys, are known. Is that really
your position? If true, forensic science would fall apart. The fact is
that one does not need to know all about the motives and methods of a
murderer to detect a deliberate murder.
If you find a dead human body with a carefully dissected chest and
their heart perfectly sectioned into four equal parts lying on their
abdomen, do you assume a non-deliberate cause until you know who did
this and why? - and with what kind of mechanism? Hmmmm? Really? Give me
a break! Even you would assume design in such a situation right off the
bat.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> Seanpit;
>>
>
>I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
Why not finish your paper first?
My bet is that we will never see it.
>
>> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
>Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
>identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
>complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
If you think life is intelligently designed then you standard for
intelligence is very low.
>
>> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> question?
>
>It depends on how you define methodology. IF you are using the standard
>human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
>then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
>is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
>1.
Life is neither durable nor simple.
>
>> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
>According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
>power resides.
Does it? Read the bit where he makes man.
>
>> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>
>Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
>species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
>of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>References available upon request.
>
>> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
>"It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
>Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
>the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
>synonymously:
Typical meaningless creationist reply = inability to think.
>
>Unmeasureable intelligence and power. This nature can only be gauged
>and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
>power. That would be genius human designers.
Oh dear, look who hasn't read his bible.
>
>Comparison:
>
>How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
>smallest storage structure ?
Computer chips don't store data.
>
>Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
>human cell.
The human cell doesn't store data.
>
>The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
>have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
>cell.
What are you going to do when you find yourself a brain?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> > > Seanpit;
>> > >
>> > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
>> > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
>> > > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
>> > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
>> > > addressed....not even the attempt:
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps you can help out...
>> > >
>> > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>> > >
>> > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> > > question?
>> > >
>> > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>> > >
>> > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>> > >
>> > > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>> >
>> > The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
>> > target question - # 5.
>>
>> Not really....I wanted to know if there was any scientific attempt at
>> an answer....thanks for confirming that there is no science in
>> ID....and that it is simply a religious position.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>IOW, you were dishonest like I pointed out.
Stop painting everyone with your own brush.
And bog off usenet and finish your paper.
--
Bob.
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
<snips>
>
> Do you know the methodology of how your television was created?
> Really? If you do not yet know, do you therefore believe that your
> television probably resulted from a mindless cause? If not, if you
> believe your television really was designed, yet you do not yet know
> the methodology to the point where you could make one yourself, upon
> what basis do you believe in television design?
>
> What you are proposing is that a mindless origin is the most likely
> cause of all things unknown, by default, until everything about the
> designer, to include the hows and the whys, are known. Is that really
> your position? If true, forensic science would fall apart. The fact is
> that one does not need to know all about the motives and methods of a
> murderer to detect a deliberate murder.
>
> If you find a dead human body with a carefully dissected chest and
> their heart perfectly sectioned into four equal parts lying on their
> abdomen, do you assume a non-deliberate cause until you know who did
> this and why? - and with what kind of mechanism? Hmmmm? Really? Give me
> a break! Even you would assume design in such a situation right off the
> bat.
Sometimes, Dr. Pitman, I think you are a pretty bright guy. But then
you write something like this and I have to come to the conclusion that
you aren't really. You just pretend you are.
In the scenario above (the flayed and butchered murder victim) we
conclude, of course, that a human did it because...well humans do that
kind of stuff. We know some things about humans, you understand.
In your version of reality, however, we might just as well conclude
that a giant pink fairy did the slicing and dicing. Or maybe it was
leprechauns. Yellow ones, with really long noses.
So explain to us why if we found "a dead human body with a carefully
dissected chest and their heart perfectly sectioned into four equal
parts lying on their abdomen" that we should NOT conclude that it was a
giant pink fairy or big-nosed leprechauns that did the dastardly deed?
There HAS to be some reason to reject those propositions, right? So
what would those reasons be?
<snip rest>
Bobby D. Bryant
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> Seanpit;
>>
>> If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the
>> sake of argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept
>> that it does....
>
> Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> when it comes to the origin of living things.
Given all the evidence that living things evolved, that's a pretty
sensible posture.
Of course, living things are hardly the only things he rejects as
designed.
Your *actual* problem, which you try to hide with your *stated*
problem, is that you want him to believe that living things are
designed, but you can't offer him any convincing evidence or
argument.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Stuart
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Seanpit;
> >
> > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > does....
>
> Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
> where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
> a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
These are all known products of human activity. We know who the
designers are, we know the processes by which they design and
manufacture.
ID proposes it can detect designs created by hypothetical designers
with unknown methods, unknown characteristics unknown everything else.
It is the epitome of stupidity to compare products of known designers
and methods with the attempt to infer completely hypothetical
designers using completely unknown mehods.
This is why ID falls down.
So how long will it be before Sean starts invoking "Hitler Nazis" ?
Stuart
Greg G.
Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> My God can create a universe that functions.....your god drives the
> Pinto.
My god drives a Galaxy.
Ken Shackleton
Seanpit wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > > Seanpit;
> > > >
> > > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > > > does....
> > >
> > > Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
> > > when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
> > > where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
> > > a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
> >
> > I was referring to questions that naturally rise out of the ID
> > premise....not the design of human artefacts.
>
> ID is based on the ability to distinguish deliberate vs. non-deliberate
> design of any kind. ID does not propose to show who, why, or how the
> designer made living things. ID theory only proposes that all living
> things were in fact deliberately designed and made.
Evidence not required...just a religious assertion.
>
> It is a common fallacy held by many evolutionists that the detection of
> design requires knowledge of motive and process. This just isn't true.
> All that is required is knowledge of the limits of non-intelligent
> processes. That's it.
And the limit of non-intelligent processes is wherever the ID proponent
feels that the going gets too tough to investigate further.
It doesn't matter? Science is about figuring out how things
operate.....the fact that there is a question that exists is all that
matters...
>
> > > Knowing how any
> > > designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
> > > understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
> > > deliberate intelligent intent.
> >
> > Yes...it is...
>
> No. . . it isn't . . . (see above)
It is required if you actually care about answering questions.
>
> > > Do you need to know how to make an
> > > airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
> > > you see one?
> >
> > I would be able to investigate the process by dismantling the
> > aircraft....
>
> Have you done that? Do you know how to make an aircraft or a CD
> player? Do you really have to do that in order to be able to
> reasonably hypothesize design when you see such systems?
I personally do know know....but I know that there are people that do
know these things.
We never find airplanes growing out of the soil from seed and we know
that there are aircraft designers, builders, and pilots. Our experience
and knowledge with other design and construction methods allows us to
know what a human constructed thing should look like.
>
> > has any ID proponent dismantled a lifeform to investigate
> > the design and build techniques?
>
> Yes - Ever heard of designer genes? Humans are in fact capable of
> designing and creating genes and inserting them into living things.
> But, of course, you would be unable to tell that intelligent
> manipulation had been going on in such cases - right?
Sure.....the manipulation would mess with the nested heirarchy of the
genetic code. The signs would be there that this is a designed life
form.
>
> > > Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
> > > they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
> > > deliberately designed.
> > >
> > > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > >
> > > Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
> > > detect deliberate design.
> >
> > Of course it is....but what you are really saying is that once you have
> > determined to your satisfaction that ID is the cause....then all
> > further investigation stops....
>
> Do you know the methodology of how your television was created?
> Really? If you do not yet know, do you therefore believe that your
> television probably resulted from a mindless cause?
I know that TV's were never found until people started making
them....they are not found in nature....they do not sprout like
mushrooms.....pretty strong evidence that they are designed.
> If not, if you
> believe your television really was designed, yet you do not yet know
> the methodology to the point where you could make one yourself, upon
> what basis do you believe in television design?
The methodology is documented and can be found...
>
> What you are proposing is that a mindless origin is the most likely
> cause of all things unknown, by default, until everything about the
> designer, to include the hows and the whys, are known. Is that really
> your position?
My position is to assume a natural process until *evidence* appears to
support a supernatural process. So far....the assumption has held true.
> If true, forensic science would fall apart. The fact is
> that one does not need to know all about the motives and methods of a
> murderer to detect a deliberate murder.
One does need to assume that the cause was natural and investigate on
those terms....or should the investigator at some point say...."This
crime is too complex....must be the result of Intelligent
Homocide....case closed.....no further investigation required."
>
> If you find a dead human body with a carefully dissected chest and
> their heart perfectly sectioned into four equal parts lying on their
> abdomen, do you assume a non-deliberate cause until you know who did
> this and why? - and with what kind of mechanism? Hmmmm? Really? Give me
> a break! Even you would assume design in such a situation right off the
> bat.
Yes.....because I know that humans dissect chests....I know something
about the designer, the process, and the intent.....
Ray Martinez
Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda. An
answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
> >
> > Like I predicted Ken relied on atheistic/non-religious philosophical
> > assumptions, packaged in a scientific wrapper
>
> At some point...the designer has to actually build something....I was
> wondering if the ID proponents have made any headway to figure out
> *how* that was accomplished. Does ID even care? Seems not....
>
Negative.
You do not like their scientific facts for philosophical/worldview
reasons, and you have decided that the best way to poison the well,
that is their evidence, is to expose a religious motive which assumes
the supernatural is not conducive with science. This assumption sides
with atheist philosophy. Hence we have come full circle: philosophy is
king - not science.
Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
correct worldview." But you won't say that. Why ? Because you secretly
know and believe the evidence does not support the atheist worldview ?
Why are you an atheist then ? We are theists because of the evidence of
ID, Bible, archaeology, and history. Maybe you do believe the evidence
supports the atheist worldview but are being considerate of TEist
brethern who shield ToE from being seen as atheist philosophy ? If this
is true then are we to believe TEists are really "wicked but I rather
not consider that ?"
I only ask that you Darwinists get your story straight.
Ray
Ken Shackleton
That's funny Ray.....I've often felt that you are really an atheist
yourself, trying with desperation to convince yourself that there must
be a god.....somehow....
Ray Martinez
Substanceless nonsensical one-liner = inability to engage and refute.
I will leave you alone, Ken.
Ray
Ken Shackleton
So....I ask a question, looking for a scientific answer....you answer
indicating a religious motivation....I point that out....and somehow I
am dishonest.
Ken Shackleton
That's a perfect description of your posts...
>
> I will leave you alone, Ken.
Thanks.....my head hurts anyway...
Ray Martinez
Yes, because your original series of questions had anti-religious
motivations masked under a false guise of scientific enquiry. Then you
evaded the scientific facts which support the existence of an invisible
Designer with more hidden philosophical charades.
And you did not ask *a* question - you asked five questions. This lapse
supports your claim of a headache so maybe you are not completely
dishonest afterall.
And I didn't lie about "leaving you alone." I changed my mind.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145641721.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> Seanpit;
>>
>> If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
>> argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
>> does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
>> need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
>> addressed....not even the attempt:
>>
>> Perhaps you can help out...
>>
>> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>>
>> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> question?
>>
>> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>>
>> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>>
>> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> target question - # 5.
>
> with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
> Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
> atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper.
Ray, has anyone told you you are a gifted mindreader? If not, it's
because of statements like the above. Why don't "IDers" simply admit who
they think the designer really is?
>
> I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
>
>> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
> Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
> identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
> complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
So, a simple I beam is not designed, but a complex weather system like a
Hurricane is the product of a "Mind".
>
>> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> question?
>
> It depends on how you define methodology.
It means how was the design carried out. Did the designer use a drawing
board.
> IF you are using the standard
> human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
> then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
> is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
> 1.
This paragraph appears to be so complex that it's unreadable. It must be
the result of "Mind".
>
>> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
> According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
> power resides.
So, "speaking" is the mechanism of production.
>
>> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>
> Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
> species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS.
How can we test this assertion?
> Immutable fact
> of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
So, why couldn't this Boss use a naturalistic method of production?
> References available upon request.
Which means Ray is unable to back up his claim.
>
>> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> "It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
> Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
> the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
> synonymously:
>
> Unmeasureable intelligence and power.
So, why not make simple and durable designs, instead of absurdly complex
ones?
> This nature can only be gauged
> and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
> power. That would be genius human designers.
That's rather a step down, from God, to human designers. Since human
designers use naturalistic methods of creating, can we assume that God does
as well?
>
> Comparison:
>
> How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
> smallest storage structure ?
What metric are you using for "information"?
>
> Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
> human cell.
The human cell has little or no storage space than any manufactured computer
can use. Therefore it's hardly any comparison.
>
> The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
> have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
> cell.
Why couldn't God have used natural processes to create that cell?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
>>
>
> Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
> know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
> exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
> admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
It worked rather well, didn't it. It sure smoked you out, and you confirmed
that ID is a religious, not a scientific position.
> An
> answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
> are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
Ken was not displaying an anti-religious agenda, as his questions were
obstensibly directed at people who claimed to be proposing science. Your
reply showed clearly that ID is not science.
>
>
>> >
>> > Like I predicted Ken relied on atheistic/non-religious philosophical
>> > assumptions, packaged in a scientific wrapper
>>
>> At some point...the designer has to actually build something....I was
>> wondering if the ID proponents have made any headway to figure out
>> *how* that was accomplished. Does ID even care? Seems not....
>>
>
> Negative.
I'd say that Ken is correct.
>
> You do not like their scientific facts for philosophical/worldview
> reasons,
What 'scientific facts'? As you have confirmed, IDers don't have
scientific facts, just their religious opinions.
> and you have decided that the best way to poison the well,
by asking questions?
> that is their evidence, is to expose a religious motive which assumes
> the supernatural is not conducive with science.
Ray, the supernatural is not only not conductive to science, it's directly
opposite of science. Science only studies the natural, and cannot make
any comment on the supernatural, for or against. Appealing to a
supernatural being is simply not science.
> This assumption sides
> with atheist philosophy.
No, it's the basic operational procedure of science.
> Hence we have come full circle: philosophy is
> king - not science.
Ray, you are rather misinformed on both topics.
>
> Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
> correct worldview."
The evidence does not say that. Why would Ken offer such a suggestion?
> But you won't say that. Why ? Because you secretly
> know and believe the evidence does not support the atheist worldview ?
The evidence supports scientific investigation. 'Atheist worldview' is no
more science than a religious world view.
> Why are you an atheist then ? We are theists because of the evidence of
> ID, Bible, archaeology, and history.
Most people are theist because of their faith. Those who depend on the
"evidence" of ID, and the Bible would be disappointed with the findings of
archeology and history. Their only recourse is to deny the evidence
contrary to their beliefs.
> Maybe you do believe the evidence
> supports the atheist worldview but are being considerate of TEist
> brethern who shield ToE from being seen as atheist philosophy ?
The theory of evolution needs no such shield. It's not an atheist
philosophy.
> If this
> is true then are we to believe TEists are really "wicked but I rather
> not consider that ?"
I'd rather consider the fact you are mistaken.
>
> I only ask that you Darwinists get your story straight.
The theory of evolution is quite consistent. Perhaps you need to get your
own story straight, so that your other Creationists won't abandon you.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> So....I ask a question, looking for a scientific answer....you answer
>> indicating a religious motivation....I point that out....and somehow I
>> am dishonest.
>>
>
>
> Yes, because your original series of questions had anti-religious
> motivations masked under a false guise of scientific enquiry.
How is asking someone who claims his statements are scientific, to answer
some questions, "anti-religious motivation"?
> Then you
> evaded the scientific facts which support the existence of an invisible
> Designer with more hidden philosophical charades.
What 'scientific facts' do you think Ken evaded?
>
> And you did not ask *a* question - you asked five questions.
All of which someone who was presenting a scientific theory could answer.
> This lapse
> supports your claim of a headache so maybe you are not completely
> dishonest afterall.
Sorry we can't say the same about you, Ray.
>
> And I didn't lie about "leaving you alone." I changed my mind.
Right, Ray, your prevarications can be all be excused by saying "I changed
my mind". It's not like anyone believed you anyway.
DJT
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Seanpit;
> >
> > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > addressed....not even the attempt:
> >
> > Perhaps you can help out...
> >
> > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> >
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
> >
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> >
> > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> >
> > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> target question - # 5.
>
for creationists or ID proponents to come up with a testable theory of
creation or design. Answers to these questions would lay the
foundations for such a theory.
>
> Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer
> with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
> Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
> atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper.
>
averse to identifying the Designer. The question is, rather, if we
could actually show design, would that be any reason to suppose that
the Designer was the God of Genesis rather than one or more of the gods
of various other religious texts.
>
> I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
>
> > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
> Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
> identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
> complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
>
identify design, but how does the Designer decide on a design. For
what it's worth, human designers try to avoid "ultra-complexity," in
favor of the simplest design that will do the job. Note, also, a
problem noted even by the father of ID theory, William Paley: humans
create complex designs because they can't make matter do some jobs
using simpler designs (i.e. you can't make a camera as simple as a
brick), but an omnipotent Designer could endow even the simplest
systems with any abilities He desired them to have (e.g. cause a brick
to be able to take pictures, e-mail them to your friends, and make
toast as well). Complexity (what Paley called "contrivance") is an
argument *against* the omnipotence of the Creator, as much as it is for
His intelligence.
>
> > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > question?
>
> human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
> then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
> is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
> 1.
>
Humans need to make physical blueprints and notes to design anything
complex. They need to look at previous design work, modify, and test
it. It has been noted that even "design," as humans do it, looks a lot
like evolution through mutation and natural selection, although we
combine parts from different lineages more often than evolution does.
Do things like parahomologous and vestigial structures imply that the
Designer of life, likewise, had to copy and modify earlier design work?
>
> > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>
> According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
> power resides.
>
or what effects in produces in the process of shaping matter into a new
species.
>
> > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>
> Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
> of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>
This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory, for example.
Now, it might be argued that if this happens in the lab, intelligence
is clearly involved, but it is equally clear that human intelligence is
not specifying the traits of the new species, or deliberately causing
the species (as opposed to causing the circumstances that let it
emerge). OTOH, if you assert that God's intelligence causes the
speciation, then you have God operating through natural forces to
produce natural results, which is basically the theistic-evolutionist
position.
>
> > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>
> "It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
> Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
> the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
> synonymously:
>
> and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
> power. That would be genius human designers.
>
adaptions argues against "unmeasureable intelligence and power," and
for finite (if vast) power. The presence of parahomologous and
vestigial structures argues, likewise, for re-use and modification of
previous designs, and hence of finite (if vast) problem-solving
ability.
>
> Comparison:
>
> How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
> smallest storage structure ?
>
> human cell.
>
> have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
> cell.
>
than human engineers. I think orthodox theologians might find that
view heretical.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
z
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
>> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> > > Seanpit;
>> > >
>> > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
>> > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
>> > > does....
>> >
>> > Sure you do. You accept that design happens all the time - just not
>> > when it comes to the origin of living things. You believe that cars
>> > where designed - right? What about crop circles in England? What about
>> > a chocolate cake? How did you detect design in these phenomena?
>>
>> I was referring to questions that naturally rise out of the ID
>> premise....not the design of human artefacts.
>
>ID is based on the ability to distinguish deliberate vs. non-deliberate
>design of any kind. ID does not propose to show who, why, or how the
>designer made living things. ID theory only proposes that all living
>things were in fact deliberately designed and made.
>
>It is a common fallacy held by many evolutionists that the detection of
>design requires knowledge of motive and process. This just isn't true.
>All that is required is knowledge of the limits of non-intelligent
>processes. That's it.
>
No, what we are asking is how you distinguish between our lack of
knowledge, and hidden design. Sure, there are huge gaps in our
understanding of biology. The gaps in knowledge are the fun areas of
research. they are not cause for despair and saying "someone smarter
than I designed this so it's not worth looking into". We also
aknowledge that sans a time machine, we cannot find every intermediate
in evolution. What we can do is provide plausible intermediates and
recreate them in the lab. We test things and learn. ID does neither.
>For example, humans can and do design amorphous rocks - but so do
>non-intelligent processes. Therefore, when you see an amorphous rock
>you do not automatically assume human design because you know of
>non-intelligent processes that can create something very similar. This
>is not true when you see a polished perfectly symmetrical granite cube.
>But why not? Why do you automatically assume human design in this case?
> Because you know that no other non-intelligent process does such
>things to granite - not even close. You don't need to know how or why
>the designer made this granite cube to know that it was designed. Even
>if you were somewhere else in the universe, on some alien planet, and
>you saw such a granite cube you would know that it was designed.
Ahh, intent. There are very few cuboidal creatures running around,
no? Also damn few any regular geometric shape critters (other than
sperical), what's your point? A designer that ignores mass laws loses
it's jobs?
>
>> > > there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
>> > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
>> > > addressed....not even the attempt:
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps you can help out...
>> > >
>> > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>> >
>> > What criteria do you us to come up with any design that you come up
>> > with?
>>
>> Not really and answer....is it? I want to know what the ID proponents
>> believe is the design criteria used by the designer?
>
>Very similar criteria that you use to design and create stuff.
>
>> > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> > > question?
>> >
>> > If I knew that, I could create lifeforms myself.
>>
>> Designing the lifeform and building it are two separate things. I can
>> design an electronic circuit....but unless I know how to build the
>> components....I'm screwed...unless I can get someone else to build the
>> components for me.
>
>If you can actually design an electronic circuit, getting the
>components made is a very small part of the problem. If I could design
>a life form, the parts are abundant - not a problem to get the needed
>parts together.
Sure, just toss a rat kidney into a mouse. I'll wait. Poor mouse.
>
>> Perhaps the designer contracts that part out...
>
>Perhaps? But who cares? Really now, it doesn't matter. The answer to
>this question is not needed in order to detect design.
>
>> > Knowing how any
>> > designer designed and created this or that phenomenon is not needed to
>> > understand that a particular phenomenon was in fact the result of
>> > deliberate intelligent intent.
>>
>> Yes...it is...
>
>No. . . it isn't . . . (see above)
>
>> > Do you need to know how to make an
>> > airplane or a spaceship yourself to reasonably hypothesize design when
>> > you see one?
>>
>> I would be able to investigate the process by dismantling the
>> aircraft....
>
>Have you done that? Do you know how to make an aircraft or a CD
>player? Do you really have to do that in order to be able to
>reasonably hypothesize design when you see such systems?
Nope, I can't make either of the above. I bet I am smart enough that
I could be trained to do either- so what?
Neither CD player nor aircradt engineers know how to do ehat I do.
Does that make them less competant designers?
>
>> has any ID proponent dismantled a lifeform to investigate
>> the design and build techniques?
>
>Yes - Ever heard of designer genes? Humans are in fact capable of
>designing and creating genes and inserting them into living things.
>But, of course, you would be unable to tell that intelligent
>manipulation had been going on in such cases - right?
Actually, we would be able to detect that there was an intervention
due to how we are currently able to introduce genes into people.
>
>> > Know one knew how the first crop circles were made when
>> > they first showed up in England, but it was quite clear that they were
>> > deliberately designed.
>> >
>> > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
>> >
>> > Again, it is not necessary to know the methodology used to be able to
>> > detect deliberate design.
>>
>> Of course it is....but what you are really saying is that once you have
>> determined to your satisfaction that ID is the cause....then all
>> further investigation stops....
>
>Do you know the methodology of how your television was created?
>Really? If you do not yet know, do you therefore believe that your
>television probably resulted from a mindless cause? If not, if you
>believe your television really was designed, yet you do not yet know
>the methodology to the point where you could make one yourself, upon
>what basis do you believe in television design?
>
ID basically falls back to either "I dunno" or ""godditit". The ID
folks are harking back to Paley's assertions, which come dpwn to the
assumption that we knoq all that can be known now. Bullshit.
GIGO. If you want to beleive you are the plaything of a bitchy deity,
be honest about it. If you want to beleive that aliens made us,
testify. You might get funding from the Scientologists that way.
But otherqwse, you have demonstrated a considerable lack of knowledge
of biology. Evolution is not directed, and does not start from
scratch. Since you seemingly have some math skills, study sequence
space from a starting sequence. Look at what stable protein folds can
be accomplished by random amino acid sequences. Count them. Look at
how many different sequences can be used to make the same protein
folds. Count them. Look at what is found in the structural
databases.
Congruence is a fun thing. I don't detect design, I detect chemistry.
B Miller
>
>
>Sean Pitman
>www.DetectingDesign.com
tim.anderson
> So, a simple I beam is not designed, but a complex weather system like a
> Hurricane is the product of a "Mind".
On "ultra-complexity": it seems to be even more problematical than the
example you gave.
I would presume there is nothing inherently necessary in genetic
systems being based on four bases instead of two or ten or some other
number (other than that CGAT had already developed in the primordial
soup and were available to be worked on). If only two bases had been
available, the complexity of the coding would be lower, but the
chromosomal packaging would be more complex.
Conversely, a base 10 schema would be more complex in coding, but the
packaging and presumably the interactions between genes would be
simpler (easier to specify gene complexes).
I think the basic point is well made already that human designers seek
the simplest possible design that it fit to purpose, not one that
includes large amounts of redundant and unproductive "features".
And another thing: I had thought IDists were desperate NOT to require
that "the designer" be God (or at least not to demand it). Why is it
then dishonest to ask Ken's questions from an "a-religious" perspective?
Ye Old One
But Ray! There are no facts that support a designer - visible or
invisable. Not one single fact supports your ideas.
>
>And you did not ask *a* question - you asked five questions. This lapse
>supports your claim of a headache so maybe you are not completely
>dishonest afterall.
One question in five parts.
>
>And I didn't lie about "leaving you alone." I changed my mind.
>
>Ray
>
Learn to snip or you will start earning abuse reports.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145653003....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> >>
> >> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
> >>
> >
> > Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
> > know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
> > exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
> > admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
>
> It worked rather well, didn't it. It sure smoked you out, and you confirmed
> that ID is a religious, not a scientific position.
>
Your view assumes atheistic starting suppositions are scientific and
your worldview rivals starting suppositions are not. We know your
opinion; why are you endlessly repeating it ?
> > An
> > answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
> > are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
>
> Ken was not displaying an anti-religious agenda, as his questions were
> obstensibly directed at people who claimed to be proposing science. Your
> reply showed clearly that ID is not science.
>
An atheist (Ken S.) not having an anti-religious agenda ?
Dana, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
email me if you want in.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Like I predicted Ken relied on atheistic/non-religious philosophical
> >> > assumptions, packaged in a scientific wrapper
> >>
> >> At some point...the designer has to actually build something....I was
> >> wondering if the ID proponents have made any headway to figure out
> >> *how* that was accomplished. Does ID even care? Seems not....
> >>
> >
> > Negative.
>
> I'd say that Ken is correct.
>
> >
> > You do not like their scientific facts for philosophical/worldview
> > reasons,
>
> What 'scientific facts'? As you have confirmed, IDers don't have
> scientific facts, just their religious opinions.
>
> > and you have decided that the best way to poison the well,
>
> by asking questions?
>
> > that is their evidence, is to expose a religious motive which assumes
> > the supernatural is not conducive with science.
>
> Ray, the supernatural is not only not conductive to science, it's directly
> opposite of science. Science only studies the natural, and cannot make
> any comment on the supernatural, for or against. Appealing to a
> supernatural being is simply not science.
>
Atheist philosophy.
The scientific evidence of an IDer falsifies your philosophy.
> > This assumption sides
> > with atheist philosophy.
>
> No, it's the basic operational procedure of science.
>
YOUR "science" with all of its anti-God needs.
> > Hence we have come full circle: philosophy is
> > king - not science.
>
> Ray, you are rather misinformed on both topics.
>
> >
> > Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
> > correct worldview."
>
> The evidence does not say that. Why would Ken offer such a suggestion?
>
Why is Ken an atheist then ?
> > But you won't say that. Why ? Because you secretly
> > know and believe the evidence does not support the atheist worldview ?
>
> The evidence supports scientific investigation.
Chez Watt of the Month !
> > Why are you an atheist then ? We are theists because of the evidence of
> > ID, Bible, archaeology, and history.
>
> Most people are theist because of their faith. Those who depend on the
> "evidence" of ID, and the Bible would be disappointed with the findings of
> archeology and history. Their only recourse is to deny the evidence
> contrary to their beliefs.
>
Atheist philosophy and corruption evading the mountains of evidence
which have proven the Bible.
Faith is based on the facts of God's word being true.
> > Maybe you do believe the evidence
> > supports the atheist worldview but are being considerate of TEist
> > brethern who shield ToE from being seen as atheist philosophy ?
>
> The theory of evolution needs no such shield. It's not an atheist
> philosophy.
>
ToE is all atheist philosophy - not a matter of opinion. I have made
you lie because you recognize no matter how much "evidence" that ToE
claims to have objective persons know it is interpreted according to
the needs of atheist philosophy.
> > If this
> > is true then are we to believe TEists are really "wicked but I rather
> > not consider that ?"
>
> I'd rather consider the fact you are mistaken.
If this were true you would have offered evidence with argument. We
know "mistaken" = retreat into attempted "teacher correcting an
inferior" tactic which indicates you have no answer but are giving into
frustration.
> >
> > I only ask that you Darwinists get your story straight.
>
> The theory of evolution is quite consistent. Perhaps you need to get your
> own story straight, so that your other Creationists won't abandon you.
>
>
> DJT
If that happens then they were never true Creationists to begin with.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Good question.
The reason they don't is because they have rightly assumed the Courts
corruption of the Constitution, that is the adjudicating of atheist
hate to be the intent of the Founding Fathers, is NOT going to change -
and they are correct.
The IDers are trying to get the evidence of design and any challenge to
Darwinism in public curriculum. Why is only Darwinism allowed ? Imagine
that...in the USA with its Constitution that suddenly says only one
origins theory is allowed by law ? What does Russia, China, N.Korea,
Iran, and the Supreme Court have in common ? Answer: The same boss.
My paper will answer this question and the rage will erupt like a
volcano....stay tuned.
> >
> > I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
> >
> >> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> >
> > Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
> > identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
> > complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
>
> So, a simple I beam is not designed, but a complex weather system like a
> Hurricane is the product of a "Mind".
>
> >
> >> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> >> question?
> >
> > It depends on how you define methodology.
>
> It means how was the design carried out. Did the designer use a drawing
> board.
>
> > IF you are using the standard
> > human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
> > then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
> > is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
> > 1.
>
> This paragraph appears to be so complex that it's unreadable. It must be
> the result of "Mind".
>
> >
> >> 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> >
> > According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
> > power resides.
>
> So, "speaking" is the mechanism of production.
>
According to the Genesis Creator. Look, I have identified the IDer and
you are still unhappy.
> >
> >> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> >
> > Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
> > species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS.
>
> How can we test this assertion?
>
Since Darwinian NS makes no sense, that is, death makes life appear out
of nothing ....we have a source for out of nothing/Bible.
You have no source but a blanket assertion that death produces life
protected by the "it is science" card.
My paper will answer this question too.
> > Immutable fact
> > of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>
> So, why couldn't this Boss use a naturalistic method of production?
>
Because there is no source for your claim. The source that we do have
for the Boss says the method of production is supernatural. The
evidence is overwhelming.
> > References available upon request.
>
> Which means Ray is unable to back up his claim.
> >
> >> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
> >
> > "It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
> > Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
> > the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
> > synonymously:
> >
> > Unmeasureable intelligence and power.
>
> So, why not make simple and durable designs, instead of absurdly complex
> ones?
>
Because the former will be falsely interpreted as not being made by
Designer. The latter is intended for those who occupy time to deduce
that an invisible Designer made it.
God knows He is invisible. He has decided that we only get to see Him
if we pass our tests and make it to heaven. In the meantime the general
revelation by which He reveals Himself is by what is seen. The Bible
says He made what is seen in such a way that a person can easily deduce
that it corresponds with Designer.
> > This nature can only be gauged
> > and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
> > power. That would be genius human designers.
>
> That's rather a step down, from God, to human designers. Since human
> designers use naturalistic methods of creating, can we assume that God does
> as well?
>
> >
> > Comparison:
> >
> > How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
> > smallest storage structure ?
>
> What metric are you using for "information"?
>
> >
> > Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
> > human cell.
>
> The human cell has little or no storage space than any manufactured computer
> can use. Therefore it's hardly any comparison.
>
> >
> > The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
> > have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
> > cell.
>
> Why couldn't God have used natural processes to create that cell?
>
> DJT
The rest of your comments are absurd and knowingly false = inability to
refute.
Ray
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > > Seanpit;
> > > >
> > > > If we were to assume for the sake of argument [and only for the sake of
> > > > argument] that ID actually happens.....and I do not accept that it
> > > > does....there are certain questions that flow from that assumption that
> > > > need to be tackled....and I have never seen these questions
> > > > addressed....not even the attempt:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can help out...
> > > >
> > > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> > > >
> > > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > > question?
> > > >
> > > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > > >
> > > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> > > >
> > > > 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
> > >
> > > The previous four questions are essentially phony and a cover for the
> > > target question - # 5.
> > >
> > The questions are quite genuine. A recurrent and unrequited request is
> > for creationists or ID proponents to come up with a testable theory of
> > creation or design. Answers to these questions would lay the
> > foundations for such a theory.
>
> revealed his true intent: insist his atheist philosophy is scientific
> and his rivals is not = very predictable.
Ray....my questions were posed because I wanted to find out if ID
proponents have ever considered *how* the designer moved from concept
through design to actual construction of a lifeform. Your answer
demonstrated that no such consideration has been attempted...at least
by yourself and Sean.
>
>
> > >
> > > Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer
> > > with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
> > > Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
> > > atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper.
> > >
> > Sean Pitman is, like you, a declared creationist, and presumably not
> > averse to identifying the Designer.
>
> Upthread Sean answered Ken's questions. Ken has been exposed as hiding
> a philosophical agenda under the guise of scientific enquiry.
Sean answered the questions in exactly the same fashion as you
did....exposing a religious viewpoint and a fear of actually moving
into the unknown.
>
> Look Steven, you are not stupid. There are two main interpretations of
> the same scientific evidence in life: atheist and theist. Why do
> atheists play this stupid game of acting like they have no bias ? There
> is NO SUCH thing as an objective person. There are only biased persons
> who can be objective - the former does not exist. Your position is
> refuted from the get-go by the fact that you guys attempt to hide your
> bias. Based on this fact you cannot be trusted to produce and
> objectively interpret complicated evidence if you cannot even admit
> what is not in dispute: everyone has bias which decides their
> interpretation of evidence.
>
> Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
> an opinion."
>
> Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> psychology. What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
> persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".
>
> We know your opinions about the evidence (supports atheism). The only
> issue is why are you afraid to admit it ?
>
> I am a theist because of the evidence.
>
> > The question is, rather, if we
> > could actually show design, would that be any reason to suppose that
> > the Designer was the God of Genesis rather than one or more of the gods
> > of various other religious texts.
>
> Comparitive religion study answers this question. Dr. Scott had a Ph.D.
> minor in Comparitive Religion.
>
> "All major religions CLAIM their prophet speaks for God. Christianity
> is the only religion whose founder claimed to be God. Jesus was either
> a nut or exactly who He claimed to be. This "nut", prior to His death,
> claimed He would rise from the dead according to the promise of the
> Father." (Dr. Scott).
>
> Millions of persons are not having an imaginary relationship with a
> non-existent Person. Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be.
Jesus does not try to tell us *how* life operates.
>
> But your question, in reality, is just an excuse. If Darwinists
> approached religion the same way they do science then you guys would
> already know these basic answers.
>
> > >
> > > I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
> > >
> > > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> > >
> > > Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
> > > identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
> > > complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
> > >
> > I think you misunderstood the question, which was not, how do we
> > identify design, but how does the Designer decide on a design.
>
> You have misunderstood since your reinterpretation is not what Ken
> asked.
Point of clarification....Ray....I wanted to know how the designer
decides on the design.
> I assume a person means what he says and says what he means. I
> suggest you do the same unless it is clear otherwise.
I think that I said what I meant.
>
> > For what it's worth, human designers try to avoid "ultra-complexity," in
> > favor of the simplest design that will do the job. Note, also, a
> > problem noted even by the father of ID theory, William Paley: humans
> > create complex designs because they can't make matter do some jobs
> > using simpler designs (i.e. you can't make a camera as simple as a
> > brick), but an omnipotent Designer could endow even the simplest
> > systems with any abilities He desired them to have (e.g. cause a brick
> > to be able to take pictures, e-mail them to your friends, and make
> > toast as well). Complexity (what Paley called "contrivance") is an
> > argument *against* the omnipotence of the Creator, as much as it is for
> > His intelligence.
>
> Here we have a Darwinist saying Paley argued against a Creator. You are
> horribly confused.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion: Paley argued for a Creator. As late as
> 1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed.
>
>
> > >
> > > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > > question?
> > >
> > > It depends on how you define methodology. IF you are using the standard
> > > human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
> > > then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
> > > is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
> > > 1.
> > >
>
> > No, I think Ken means,
>
> Negative. Ken meant what he said and not what you think he should of
> said.
What I meant was what I said.....how does the designer actually perform
the design? Humans use drawings, scale models, etc. to work out the
finer details and problems before committing to an actual
prototype....let alone production.
>
> > how does the work of design itself get done?
> > Humans need to make physical blueprints and notes to design anything
> > complex. They need to look at previous design work, modify, and test
> > it. It has been noted that even "design," as humans do it, looks a lot
> > like evolution through mutation and natural selection, although we
> > combine parts from different lineages more often than evolution does.
> > Do things like parahomologous and vestigial structures imply that the
> > Designer of life, likewise, had to copy and modify earlier design work?
>
> No modifications since it implies an original error was made.
If we only see the designer's finished products....perhaps we can be
excused for assuming that no mistakes were made....but perhaps he
weeded them out in the design process before committing to a finished
product.
>
> But if your bias requires such an interpretation then by all means.
>
>
> > >
> > > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > >
> > > According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
> > > power resides.
> > >
> > That doesn't really answer the question of how the spoken word works,
> > or what effects in produces in the process of shaping matter into a new
> > species.
>
> Yes it does. I have a source for my view. What is your source for your
> disagreement ?
I wanted to know how "the spoken word" gets translated into a
functional physical entity. There must be some process involved.....and
apparently ID does not care about that.
Do atoms materialize out of nothingness? Has any ID proponent ever
observed this with his/her own eyes? Do existing atoms spontaneously
rearrange themslves though the designer's will? If so....has this ever
been observed directly?
ID proponents frequently require that a scientist observe an event
directly....indirect evidence apparently won't do....does ID require
the same rigor for their own ideas?
>
> > >
> > > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> > >
> > > Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
> > > species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
> > > of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
> > > References available upon request.
> > >
> > This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
> > produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory,
>
> No such thing has ever happened. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. The
> ghoulish tinkering you are alluding to produces sterile freaks that die
> outside of any protective environment.
Read Ray.....a new species of fruit fly is of course still a fruit
fly...
>
> Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier. This is why
> Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
> "Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales. Darwin had conducted
> extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
> generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.
>
> We know Darwinism asserts that nature, behind our backs in the wild,
> crosses the barrier = not a shred of experimental evidence to support
> this atheistic need.
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145653003....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> >>
>> >> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
>> > know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
>> > exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
>> > admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
>>
>> It worked rather well, didn't it. It sure smoked you out, and you
>> confirmed
>> that ID is a religious, not a scientific position.
>>
>
> Your view assumes atheistic starting suppositions are scientific and
> your worldview rivals starting suppositions are not.
What is an "athestic starting supposition"? All scientific positions
start from the fact that science does not deal with supernatural influences.
A 'supposition' that a supernatural being is involved is just not
scientific.
>We know your
> opinion; why are you endlessly repeating it ?
You also know I'm not an atheist. Why are you "endlessly repeating" false
claims that I am?
>
>> > An
>> > answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
>> > are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
>>
>> Ken was not displaying an anti-religious agenda, as his questions were
>> obstensibly directed at people who claimed to be proposing science.
>> Your
>> reply showed clearly that ID is not science.
>>
>
> An atheist (Ken S.) not having an anti-religious agenda ?
So it would appear. One can be an atheist without being "anti-religious".
>
> Dana, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> email me if you want in.
Was this bridge sold to you by someone with a Standford PhD? I'm not the
in habit of buying things without knowing where they came from. I'm also
not in the habit of altering evidence to fit my beliefs, that is what you
are best at.
snip
>> > You do not like their scientific facts for philosophical/worldview
>> > reasons,
>>
>> What 'scientific facts'? As you have confirmed, IDers don't have
>> scientific facts, just their religious opinions.
What a surprise. Ray doesn't provide any "scientific facts" to support his
claim.....
>>
>> > and you have decided that the best way to poison the well,
>>
>> by asking questions?
>>
>> > that is their evidence, is to expose a religious motive which assumes
>> > the supernatural is not conducive with science.
>>
>> Ray, the supernatural is not only not conductive to science, it's
>> directly
>> opposite of science. Science only studies the natural, and cannot make
>> any comment on the supernatural, for or against. Appealing to a
>> supernatural being is simply not science.
>>
>
> Atheist philosophy.
As I've explained to you many times, science is not atheist philosophy.
Appeal to the supernatural is religion, not science. One can accept
science, and still accept the supernatural, as long as one knows enough to
keep them separate.
>
> The scientific evidence of an IDer falsifies your philosophy.
Again, Ray, what "scientific evidence"? If you assume a supernatural
being, you are not performing science. What evidence do you have to
support your claim?
>
>> > This assumption sides
>> > with atheist philosophy.
>>
>> No, it's the basic operational procedure of science.
>>
>
> YOUR "science" with all of its anti-God needs.
My science is the science that everyone, atheist, theist, or agnostic, uses.
There is no "anti-God" need for this science. Science operates without
regard to anyone's concept of God. Can you cite any examples of a science
that appeals to a supernatual being? How can claims be tested, when you
assume the supernatural? How do you choose between competing supernatural
claims? ie How do we choose whether it was Zeus, or Odin that caused a
particular effect? Is lightining caused by Thor's Hammer, or Jupiter's
bolts?
snippinig
>> > Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
>> > correct worldview."
>>
>> The evidence does not say that. Why would Ken offer such a suggestion?
>>
>
> Why is Ken an atheist then ?
People choose atheism for a number of reasons. Why don't you ask Ken?
All that science can say about God is that there is no direct evidence of
his existance. It does not say that God does not, or cannot exist.
>
>> > But you won't say that. Why ? Because you secretly
>> > know and believe the evidence does not support the atheist worldview ?
>>
>> The evidence supports scientific investigation.
>
> Chez Watt of the Month !
Then nominate it for such. But I don't see what is unusual or outstanding
about a simple statment of truth. Science is not an atheistic worldview,
and the evidence does not support either an atheistic world view, or a
theistic one.
>
>
>> > Why are you an atheist then ? We are theists because of the evidence of
>> > ID, Bible, archaeology, and history.
>>
>> Most people are theist because of their faith. Those who depend on the
>> "evidence" of ID, and the Bible would be disappointed with the findings
>> of
>> archeology and history. Their only recourse is to deny the evidence
>> contrary to their beliefs.
>>
>
> Atheist philosophy and corruption evading the mountains of evidence
> which have proven the Bible.
Ray, you keep asserting this evidence, but never seem to be able to produce
any evidence that the Bible is "proven".
>
> Faith is based on the facts of God's word being true.
That wouldn't be faith, then. Faith is belief without evidence. What you
are talking about is certianty, which is something that neither science, or
religion offers.
>
>
>> > Maybe you do believe the evidence
>> > supports the atheist worldview but are being considerate of TEist
>> > brethern who shield ToE from being seen as atheist philosophy ?
>>
>> The theory of evolution needs no such shield. It's not an atheist
>> philosophy.
>>
>
> ToE is all atheist philosophy - not a matter of opinion.
Ray, as I've noticed before, you have a rather bad habit of stating your
opinion by claming it's "not a matter of opinion". The fact is, that the
theory of evolution is not an atheist philosophy. Stating your opinion as
fact does not change that.
>I have made
> you lie because you recognize no matter how much "evidence" that ToE
> claims to have objective persons know it is interpreted according to
> the needs of atheist philosophy.
Ray, I don't lie, and you can't make me lie about anything. You are
simply wrong about my motivations, and your denial of the evidence does you
no credit. You are not an "objective person" and your attempts to speak
for them are just silly. The evidence speaks for itself, and no amount
of trying to claim "atheist philosphy" is going to change that.
>
>
>> > If this
>> > is true then are we to believe TEists are really "wicked but I rather
>> > not consider that ?"
>>
>> I'd rather consider the fact you are mistaken.
>
> If this were true you would have offered evidence with argument.
I have offered evidence many times, you have simply denied that evidence.
>We
> know "mistaken" = retreat into attempted "teacher correcting an
> inferior" tactic which indicates you have no answer but are giving into
> frustration.
Ray, when you are mistaken, you will get a correction. If this makes you
feel inferior, that's your own problem. When I answer you, then it's
obvious that I do have an answer. Trying to assume that I am "fustrated"
when I tell you something you don't wish to hear, does not invalidate my
statements.
>
>> >
>> > I only ask that you Darwinists get your story straight.
>>
>> The theory of evolution is quite consistent. Perhaps you need to get
>> your
>> own story straight, so that your other Creationists won't abandon you.
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> If that happens then they were never true Creationists to begin with.
And the sound of Bagpipes rises, as Ray invokes the "No True Scotsman"
fallacy.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> > Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer
>> > with the hope that the IDist will somehow allude to the Genesis
>> > Creator. When this happens the Darwinist will then make a predictable
>> > atheistic philosophical argument disguised in a scientific wrapper.
>>
>> Ray, has anyone told you you are a gifted mindreader? If not, it's
>> because of statements like the above. Why don't "IDers" simply admit who
>> they think the designer really is?
>>
>
> Good question.
And I predict a poor answer......
>
> The reason they don't is because they have rightly assumed the Courts
> corruption of the Constitution, that is the adjudicating of atheist
> hate to be the intent of the Founding Fathers, is NOT going to change -
> and they are correct.
Is this an admission that the IDers are deliberately being deceptive?
Most of the Judges that are aducating this "atheist hate" are rather devout
Christians, who have studied the law far more thouroughly than Ray has.
They are far more informed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers than Ray
is.
>
> The IDers are trying to get the evidence of design and any challenge to
> Darwinism in public curriculum.
So, why don't they go through scientific channels? That is the way any
legitamate challenge to evolutionary theory would be presented.
>Why is only Darwinism allowed ?
Because it's the only scientific theory that fits the evidence. Find
another scientific theory, that explains the evidence as well, or better,
and it will be allowed too. ID is not a theory, it's a religious belief,
as you have already shown.
> Imagine
> that...in the USA with its Constitution that suddenly says only one
> origins theory is allowed by law ?
It does not say that. It says any "origin theory' that is taught as
science needs to be a science, not a religious belief. Come up with an
alternate scientific theory, and you are in business.
> What does Russia, China, N.Korea,
> Iran, and the Supreme Court have in common ? Answer: The same boss.
John Roberts is the boss of the Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian
court systems? How odd.
>
> My paper will answer this question and the rage will erupt like a
> volcano....stay tuned.
Ray, I hope I won't be needing my Social Security benefits before your
"paper" gets published. Why do you keep delaying this work?
snipping
>> > According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
>> > power resides.
>>
>> So, "speaking" is the mechanism of production.
>>
>
> According to the Genesis Creator. Look, I have identified the IDer and
> you are still unhappy.
What makes you think I'm "unhappy"? You have clearly shown that ID is not
a scientific concept. It has no testable mechanism, no testable
predictions, and nothing but empty rhetoric. I have no problem if you
wish to propose magic as a religious belief, but it's not science.
>
>
>> >
>> >> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>> >
>> > Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
>> > species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS.
>>
>> How can we test this assertion?
>>
>
> Since Darwinian NS makes no sense,
That's another assertion, not a means of testing an assertion. Natural
selection does make sense, and it's a testable mechanism.
> that is, death makes life appear out
> of nothing
Since that's not what natural selection proposes, I agree that does not make
sense. Strawman arguments usually don't. Natural selection does not
"make life appear", it's nature's way of filtering the variations in a
population of already living organisms.
>....we have a source for out of nothing/Bible.
But your "source" is nothing but a religious claim, that can't be tested,
and can be observed. One can observe the effect of natural selection on a
population, and make predictions as to what one would expect to observe.
How can we observe your mechanism?
>
> You have no source but a blanket assertion that death produces life
> protected by the "it is science" card.
As I pointed out above, there is no such "blanket assertion". Natural
selection does not claim that "death produces life". Natural selection is
a known property of population dynamics. It's not believed to be by itself,
the process by which life began.
>
> My paper will answer this question too.
Ray, either produce the "paper" or stop appealing to something that most
likely will never see the light of day.
>
>
>> > Immutable fact
>> > of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>>
>> So, why couldn't this Boss use a naturalistic method of production?
>>
>
> Because there is no source for your claim.
Why isn't a great deal of physical evidence, ranging from the genetic, to
the fossil to the molecular, etc a "source"?
> The source that we do have
> for the Boss says the method of production is supernatural.
Actually, the Bible doesn't say what means of production God used. It
says that God created, not how.
> The
> evidence is overwhelming.
Yet we never see any of your "evidence". Why is that?
snip
>> >
>> > Unmeasureable intelligence and power.
>>
>> So, why not make simple and durable designs, instead of absurdly complex
>> ones?
>>
>
> Because the former will be falsely interpreted as not being made by
> Designer.
A simple and durable design would better indicate intelligent design, than
the kludged together mess we see in nature.
> The latter is intended for those who occupy time to deduce
> that an invisible Designer made it.
How do we know you aren't simply fooling yourself ? Your pride is telling
you that you can see and deduce this design, much the same way the people
did in the fable you like quoting about the Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe
God is much more subtle than you give him credit for?
>
> God knows He is invisible. He has decided that we only get to see Him
> if we pass our tests and make it to heaven.
As a theological belief, that's fine, but it's not anything approching
science.
> In the meantime the general
> revelation by which He reveals Himself is by what is seen.
Or, your pride is telling you that if you are clever enough, you can see
these 'clues'. But if there are no clues, and God truly expects you to
accept on faith alone, you are only fooling yourself.
> The Bible
> says He made what is seen in such a way that a person can easily deduce
> that it corresponds with Designer.
That's your idiosyncratic interpetation of that verse. You might be
wrong. Can you even consider that?
snip
>> > How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
>> > smallest storage structure ?
>>
>> What metric are you using for "information"?
No answer.... how surprising....
>>
>> >
>> > Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
>> > human cell.
>>
>> The human cell has little or no storage space than any manufactured
>> computer
>> can use. Therefore it's hardly any comparison.
No reply... how odd.
>>
>> >
>> > The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
>> > have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
>> > cell.
>>
>> Why couldn't God have used natural processes to create that cell?
>>
>> DJT
>
> The rest of your comments are absurd and knowingly false = inability to
> refute.
Lack of answer and ad hominem. It seems that you are the one unable to
refute.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145727266.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1145653003....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> snipping
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
> >> > know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
> >> > exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
> >> > admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
> >>
> >> It worked rather well, didn't it. It sure smoked you out, and you
> >> confirmed
> >> that ID is a religious, not a scientific position.
> >>
> >
> > Your view assumes atheistic starting suppositions are scientific and
> > your worldview rivals starting suppositions are not.
>
> What is an "athestic starting supposition"? All scientific positions
> start from the fact that science does not deal with supernatural influences.
> A 'supposition' that a supernatural being is involved is just not
> scientific.
>
Again, this starting position sides with atheistic philosophy. Theists
know all sound scientific position begin with the acknowledgement that
God is the Designer and Creator.
> >We know your
> > opinion; why are you endlessly repeating it ?
>
> You also know I'm not an atheist. Why are you "endlessly repeating" false
> claims that I am?
>
Negative. My position concerning you is: We have a person claiming to
be a Christian but he sides with atheistic starting suppositions about
science. This is why I conclude you are not as you claim but as you
argue.
> >
> >> > An
> >> > answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
> >> > are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
> >>
> >> Ken was not displaying an anti-religious agenda, as his questions were
> >> obstensibly directed at people who claimed to be proposing science.
> >> Your
> >> reply showed clearly that ID is not science.
> >>
> >
> > An atheist (Ken S.) not having an anti-religious agenda ?
>
> So it would appear. One can be an atheist without being "anti-religious".
>
Rare exceptions like Velikovsky and Richard Milton. Ken's bias is very
conspicuous as is his dishonest denial of it = a person who cannot be
trusted.
Defending atheist philosophy by demanding an exemption for it (it is
science and all other philosophies are not). This is the evidence which
exposes your claim of Christianity to be false. A blind person could
call this one.
Science perfectly supports the supernatural - only atheists predictably
assert otherwise. Claiming Christian status does not harm this
axiomatic truth, on the contrary, it supports it in that the
"Christian" labels himself as such in order to protect the atheist
philosophy from being exposed as such. Real Christians are enthusiastic
about proclaiming the physical evidence of God's existence. Real
Christians don't support their enemies/atheists. This is invulnerable
logic and your honesty is determined every time you "challenge" it with
deliberate illogic and nonsense.
> >
> > The scientific evidence of an IDer falsifies your philosophy.
>
> Again, Ray, what "scientific evidence"? If you assume a supernatural
> being, you are not performing science. What evidence do you have to
> support your claim?
>
> >
> >> > This assumption sides
> >> > with atheist philosophy.
> >>
> >> No, it's the basic operational procedure of science.
> >>
> >
> > YOUR "science" with all of its anti-God needs.
>
> My science is the science that everyone, atheist, theist, or agnostic, uses.
> There is no "anti-God" need for this science. Science operates without
> regard to anyone's concept of God. Can you cite any examples of a science
> that appeals to a supernatual being? How can claims be tested, when you
> assume the supernatural? How do you choose between competing supernatural
> claims? ie How do we choose whether it was Zeus, or Odin that caused a
> particular effect? Is lightining caused by Thor's Hammer, or Jupiter's
> bolts?
>
> snippinig
>
> >> > Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
> >> > correct worldview."
> >>
> >> The evidence does not say that. Why would Ken offer such a suggestion?
> >>
> >
> > Why is Ken an atheist then ?
>
> People choose atheism for a number of reasons. Why don't you ask Ken?
> All that science can say about God is that there is no direct evidence of
> his existance. It does not say that God does not, or cannot exist.
>
Science knows the evidence is abundant for God. Only atheists and
Darwinists deny for anti-religious reasons.
Atheists and Darwinists are not science - they are ScientISM = the
branch of science that hates God.
Ray
My paper will explain why you guys think there is no evidence for God
and why everyone else knows the evidence is everywhere in plain sight.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
One reason why theists make bad scientists.
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> Sean Pitman is, like you, a declared creationist, and presumably not
>> averse to identifying the Designer.
>
> Upthread Sean answered Ken's questions. Ken has been exposed as hiding
> a philosophical agenda under the guise of scientific enquiry.
Making assertions does not make it so.
>
> Look Steven, you are not stupid. There are two main interpretations of
> the same scientific evidence in life: atheist and theist.
No, Ray. There is no such thing as a "theist", or "atheist" interpetation
of scientific evidence. Evidence is evidence, and if you are performing
science, appeal to a supernatural being to explain evidence is strictly
disallowed. That's not to say one cannot make such an appeal, but you must
understand that such an appeal is not, and cannot be science.
> Why do
> atheists play this stupid game of acting like they have no bias ?
few, if any atheists I have ever met have done so.
> There
> is NO SUCH thing as an objective person.
Yet Ray often appeals to this mythical person when it suits him.
> There are only biased persons
> who can be objective - the former does not exist. Your position is
> refuted from the get-go by the fact that you guys attempt to hide your
> bias.
Atheists don't try to hide their bias, but since science is a way of
reducing bias in interpetation, there is not usually a need to hide such a
bias. Science is not, and has never been a provence limited to atheists.
>Based on this fact you cannot be trusted to produce and
> objectively interpret complicated evidence if you cannot even admit
> what is not in dispute: everyone has bias which decides their
> interpretation of evidence.
If it were only atheists engaged in science, you might have a slight bit of
a point. Science, however is open to anyone who cares to follow the
rules, your claim of "bias" is nonsense.
>
> Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
> an opinion."
Apparently is is possible to expose oneself to evidence, and form an opinion
that is totally wrong. It's also possible to deny the evidence and
maintain one's preconceived opinion. That is what Creationists are best
at.
>
> Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> psychology.
Actually, Mr. Scott's Ph.D was in "Philosophies of Education", not in
general philosophy, or in religion. Psychology is not necessarily a "minor"
in a Ph.D. There's nothing to indicate that Mr. Scott had any special
training in psychology other than any other college grad might have.
> What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
> persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".
Usually the term "agnostic" refers to a belief in a supernatural being.
Since there is no physical evidence of a supernatural being, it's quite
possible for someone to claim in good faith to be an agnostic as far as
one's religious beliefs are concerned.
>
> We know your opinions about the evidence (supports atheism). The only
> issue is why are you afraid to admit it ?
As I've pointed out before, the evidence cannot support atheism. Physical
evidence can only show the existance, or non existance of a physical being.
One cannot deny the existance of God, based only on the evidence.
>
> I am a theist because of the evidence.
Yet when asked to present this evidence, you never produce anything that
might support your claim.
>
>> The question is, rather, if we
>> could actually show design, would that be any reason to suppose that
>> the Designer was the God of Genesis rather than one or more of the gods
>> of various other religious texts.
>
> Comparitive religion study answers this question. Dr. Scott had a Ph.D.
> minor in Comparitive Religion.
You claimed above that he had a minor in Psychology. Which is it?
>
> "All major religions CLAIM their prophet speaks for God.
Well, no. Bhuddism doesn't claim to speak for God.
> Christianity
> is the only religion whose founder claimed to be God.
No, many religions had founders who claimed to be God, or an incarnation of
God.
> Jesus was either
> a nut or exactly who He claimed to be. This "nut", prior to His death,
> claimed He would rise from the dead according to the promise of the
> Father." (Dr. Scott).
Again, there is no physical evidence to support Jesus' claims. I accept
them on my faith in God, but I don't pretend there is any evidence to
support my belief.
>
> Millions of persons are not having an imaginary relationship with a
> non-existent Person. Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be.
Which is a religious claim. I happen to believe that it is true, but there
isn't any evidence to support my belief.
>
> But your question, in reality, is just an excuse. If Darwinists
> approached religion the same way they do science then you guys would
> already know these basic answers.
Religion and science are not the same thing. "Darwinists" include many
people who are deeply and genuinely believers in God, Jesus, and his
teachings. They also accept the scientific evidence that shows that
organisms evolve.
snip
>> Complexity (what Paley called "contrivance") is an
>> argument *against* the omnipotence of the Creator, as much as it is for
>> His intelligence.
>
> Here we have a Darwinist saying Paley argued against a Creator. You are
> horribly confused.
No, Ray, you are missing Steven's point. Paley claimed that complexity was
an argument for God. Steven is pointing out that complexity is just as
strong an argument against God.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion: Paley argued for a Creator.
Yes, but as Steven pointed out, Paley's arguement doesn't hold water.
> As late as
> 1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed.
Which is your subjective, and as you admit above, biased belief. The
opinion of most philosophers is that Paley was already refuted by Hume,
before Paley even published his argument from design.
snip
>
>> No, I think Ken means,
>
> Negative. Ken meant what he said and not what you think he should of
> said.
Ray, your ability to distinguish what people mean is quite as poor as your
understanding of biology. Ken himself disagrees with you.
>
>> how does the work of design itself get done?
>> Humans need to make physical blueprints and notes to design anything
>> complex. They need to look at previous design work, modify, and test
>> it. It has been noted that even "design," as humans do it, looks a lot
>> like evolution through mutation and natural selection, although we
>> combine parts from different lineages more often than evolution does.
>> Do things like parahomologous and vestigial structures imply that the
>> Designer of life, likewise, had to copy and modify earlier design work?
>
> No modifications since it implies an original error was made.
Then why do we see modifications of the "design" in any population? Some
members of a population are larger, or smaller, or lighter in color, or have
longer legs, or shorter stems, or broader leaves, etc... If all members of
a population were identical, then perhaps you might have a point.
>
> But if your bias requires such an interpretation then by all means.
Not an "interpetation" but an observed fact.
snipping
>> That doesn't really answer the question of how the spoken word works,
>> or what effects in produces in the process of shaping matter into a new
>> species.
>
> Yes it does. I have a source for my view.
But your 'source' is not a scientifc work, and does not provide any details
as to the process used.
> What is your source for your
> disagreement ?
The overwhelming mass of contrary evidence.
>
>> >
>> > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>> >
>> > Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
>> > species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
>> > of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>> > References available upon request.
>> >
>> This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
>> produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory,
>
> No such thing has ever happened. Fruit flies remain fruit flies.
They became a different species of fruit fly, one that could not breed with
it's parent population. That's evolution.
> The
> ghoulish tinkering you are alluding to produces sterile freaks that die
> outside of any protective environment.
So does natural breeding in any population. A portion of any population
has fatal mutations. "sterile freaks" do not become a new species, as they
can't pass on their genes. A "protective enviroment" is one in which the
organism survives, and any enviroment can be considered 'protective', if the
organism is suited for it. Evolution selects for the present enviroment,
and if that enviroment is a scientist's lab, that's a enviroment where the
organism can survive.
>
> Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier.
There is no such thing as a "natural genetic barrier".
> This is why
> Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
> "Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales.
Darwin did not propose 'bears morphing into whales" as something he actually
believed happened. He was using it as a hypothetical example. This has
been explained to you before, and you apparently failed to listen then.
> Darwin had conducted
> extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
> generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.
There is no "genetic barrier" that prevents new species from occuring.
>
> We know Darwinism asserts that nature, behind our backs in the wild,
Or under direct observation in labs, or in natural settings....
> crosses the barrier
No such barrier has ever been found.
> = not a shred of experimental evidence to support
> this atheistic need.
Except for hundreds of controlled observational studies which show just such
a "crossing" of a non-existant barrier. For a few of such studies, see:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/
http://www.endlersr.us/alex004.pdf#search='guppy%20evolution%20speciation'
DJT
>
> Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
> > What is an "athestic starting supposition"? All scientific positions
> > start from the fact that science does not deal with supernatural influences.
> > A 'supposition' that a supernatural being is involved is just not
> > scientific.
> >
>
> Again, this starting position sides with atheistic philosophy.
Notice, no answer to my question. What is an "atheistic starting
supposition"?
>Theists
> know all sound scientific position begin with the acknowledgement that
> God is the Designer and Creator.
The claim that God is the Designer and Creator is a religious belief,
not a scientific position. Ray tries to play the "appeal to
popularity" by claiming that "Theists know" something that is patently
untrue. Anyone who practices science, be he/she "theist", atheist, or
agnostic, or otherwise, must start with the basic understanding that
science does not make appeals to the supernatural.
>
> > >We know your
> > > opinion; why are you endlessly repeating it ?
> >
> > You also know I'm not an atheist. Why are you "endlessly repeating" false
> > claims that I am?
> >
>
> Negative. My position concerning you is: We have a person claiming to
> be a Christian but he sides with atheistic starting suppositions about
> science.
My "staring supposition" is the same one that anyone who uses science
must have. Science simply does not deal with appeals to the
supernatural. It's not an "atheist" position, it's simply how science
works. Anyone can use science, regardless of their religious belief.
>This is why I conclude you are not as you claim but as you
> argue.
As I've tirelessly pointed out, your assessment of "how I argue" is
hopelessly mistaken. I am not an athiest, but I accept the findings
of science, which does not allow appeals to the supernatural.
>
>
> > >
> > >> > An
> > >> > answer that I predicted. IOW you are guilty of the same thing that you
> > >> > are condemning: religious agenda, in this case: anti.
> > >>
> > >> Ken was not displaying an anti-religious agenda, as his questions were
> > >> obstensibly directed at people who claimed to be proposing science.
> > >> Your
> > >> reply showed clearly that ID is not science.
> > >>
> > >
> > > An atheist (Ken S.) not having an anti-religious agenda ?
> >
> > So it would appear. One can be an atheist without being "anti-religious".
> >
>
> Rare exceptions like Velikovsky and Richard Milton.
that is, anyone who you think is on your side. That is the meaning of
"special pleading" Ray. Making exceptions for no good reason. If
Velikovsky and Milton are atheists (and we have no reason to think they
are) and can work without an anti-religious bias, why assume Ken has
one.
> Ken's bias is very
> conspicuous as is his dishonest denial of it = a person who cannot be
> trusted.
You are just assuming an "anti-religious" bias, because it suits your
purposes. You have no evidence of such a bias, or that he is being
dishonest by denying such a bias.
>
> > >
> > > Dana, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> > > email me if you want in.
> >
> > Was this bridge sold to you by someone with a Standford PhD? I'm not the
> > in habit of buying things without knowing where they came from. I'm also
> > not in the habit of altering evidence to fit my beliefs, that is what you
> > are best at.
Notice no response here... What's Ray afraid of?
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >> > You do not like their scientific facts for philosophical/worldview
> > >> > reasons,
> > >>
> > >> What 'scientific facts'? As you have confirmed, IDers don't have
> > >> scientific facts, just their religious opinions.
> >
> > What a surprise. Ray doesn't provide any "scientific facts" to support his
> > claim.....
Still no scientific facts to support Ray's assertion.
snipping
> > As I've explained to you many times, science is not atheist philosophy.
> > Appeal to the supernatural is religion, not science. One can accept
> > science, and still accept the supernatural, as long as one knows enough to
> > keep them separate.
> >
>
> Defending atheist philosophy by demanding an exemption for it (it is
> science and all other philosophies are not).
Science is not a philosophy, Ray. It's a means of investigation, and
one of it's rules is that appeal to the supernatural is not allowed.
Any belief system that requries you to appeal to the supernatural may
be many things, but it's not science.
>This is the evidence which
> exposes your claim of Christianity to be false.
No, Ray, it shows that a Christian can use science. Your false
accusation against me is just driven by your inability to refute what I
say.
>A blind person could
> call this one.
Correction, a blinded person called it. Not surprisingly, it's
false.
>
> Science perfectly supports the supernatural
How? Please explain how science "perfectly supports" the
supernatural.
>- only atheists predictably
> assert otherwise.
Actually, Ray, many people assert otherwise, mainly because your
statement is false. It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs
may be.
> Claiming Christian status does not harm this
> axiomatic truth,
Ray, a false claim is not an "axiomatic truth". It's not a truth at
all.
> on the contrary, it supports it in that the
> "Christian" labels himself as such in order to protect the atheist
> philosophy from being exposed as such.
Since science, as I've patiently explained, is not atheist philosophy,
your contstruct falls.
> Real Christians are enthusiastic
> about proclaiming the physical evidence of God's existence.
Here we have the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. If those "real
Christians" are enthusiastic about proclaiming the physical evidence of
God's existance, they are very reluctant to actually present any.
Why is that Ray? Where is your physical evidence?
> Real
> Christians don't support their enemies/atheists.
A person who follows Christ does not see other people as enemies, even
if they don't believe the same thing.
>This is invulnerable
> logic and your honesty is determined every time you "challenge" it with
> deliberate illogic and nonsense.
Ray, what about your flawed construction do you see as "invulnerable
logic"? Your premise is faulty, you are unable to cite any evidence
to support your belief, and your conclusion follows from a bad premise,
and a even worse assumption. I've pointed out in perfectly logical
fashion that 1. Science is not atheist philosophy. 2. that Christians
may accept science without abandoning their beliefs, and 3. that my
statements are not supporting atheism. All you can do is continue to
assert that science equates with atheism, and that you have physical
evidence, which you never seem to show. How is my measured and
logical rebuttal "deliberate illogic and nonsense"?
>
>
> > >
> > > The scientific evidence of an IDer falsifies your philosophy.
> >
> > Again, Ray, what "scientific evidence"? If you assume a supernatural
> > being, you are not performing science. What evidence do you have to
> > support your claim?
Ray once again fails to provide that evidence.
> >
> > >
> > >> > This assumption sides
> > >> > with atheist philosophy.
> > >>
> > >> No, it's the basic operational procedure of science.
> > >>
> > >
> > > YOUR "science" with all of its anti-God needs.
> >
> > My science is the science that everyone, atheist, theist, or agnostic, uses.
> > There is no "anti-God" need for this science. Science operates without
> > regard to anyone's concept of God. Can you cite any examples of a science
> > that appeals to a supernatual being? How can claims be tested, when you
> > assume the supernatural? How do you choose between competing supernatural
> > claims? ie How do we choose whether it was Zeus, or Odin that caused a
> > particular effect? Is lightining caused by Thor's Hammer, or Jupiter's
> > bolts?
Once again, we are left without a reply. What is Ray afraid of?
> >
> > snippinig
> >
> > >> > Its better for you, Ken, to say "the evidence says atheism is the
> > >> > correct worldview."
> > >>
> > >> The evidence does not say that. Why would Ken offer such a suggestion?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why is Ken an atheist then ?
> >
> > People choose atheism for a number of reasons. Why don't you ask Ken?
> > All that science can say about God is that there is no direct evidence of
> > his existance. It does not say that God does not, or cannot exist.
> >
>
> Science knows the evidence is abundant for God.
Then where may we find that evidence is any legitamate scientific
journal? I have no problem with there being evidence for God, and I'd
like to see it. Just provide the journal article, and references.
> Only atheists and
> Darwinists deny for anti-religious reasons.
If that were true (and Ray knows it's not) he'd be able to point to
journal refernences. The best evidence that I'm speaking truthfully
is that Ray cannot, and will not provide those references.
>
> Atheists and Darwinists are not science
As used by Ray, the above groups do not really exist at all. Ray is
simply using them as his bete noir. Something to be frightened of.
>- they are ScientISM = the
> branch of science that hates God.
>From my experience, atheists don't hate God, they simply don't believe
in him. "Darwinists" encompasses a large number of scientists, who
come from a large number of religious and philosophic traditions.
Many of them obviously do not "hate" God, as they are deeply religious
and deeply spirital people who worship God. Ray simply argues ad
hominem, because he has nothing else to present.
>
> Ray
>
> My paper will explain why you guys think there is no evidence for God
> and why everyone else knows the evidence is everywhere in plain sight.
Ray, stop appealing to a phantom "paper" that most likely will never be
finished. Either publish the thing, or stop waving it around. No
one is impressed with your imaginary "paper".
snipping of many ignored, and evaded points...
DJT
DJT
Ye Old One wrote:
snipping
> >Again, this starting position sides with atheistic philosophy. Theists
> >know all sound scientific position begin with the acknowledgement that
> >God is the Designer and Creator.
>
> One reason why theists make bad scientists.
I have to disagree. Theists can be very good scientists, as long as
they know enough to keep their religious and their scientific opinions
separate. There have been many very gifted and consciencious
scientists who have professed religious beliefs.
To say that theists make bad scientists is to tar with as broad a
brush as Ray uses. Granted that Ray's definition of "theist" is non
standard, and apparently only applies to people who agree exactly with
his own religious ramblings.
DJT
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1145727266.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1145653003....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> snipping
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
> > >> > know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
> > >> > exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
> > >> > admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
Ray.....are you actually saying that my dishonesty was determined by
how you answered the question rather than by how I posed it?
Ken wouldn't
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why is Ken an atheist then ?
Ray....I consider myself to be a non-denominational agnostic ;)
I was raised by Christian parents....but I knew before I hit my teens
that Christianity was a fairy tale [at least the version presented to
me]. My parents raised me to be an independant thinker and that is
exactly what they got. I would like to think that there is a God of
some sort, but I really do not know. My own personal philosophy is most
closely matched by Buddhism. If that makes me an atheist in your
mind....the so be it.
I do admire people that have a strong spirituality and faith.....the
belief in something felt deep within [yet unsupported by evidence] can
be a comfort at times. However....belief in that which has been clearly
demonstrated to be false is just plain stupid....and offers no comfort
at all.
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
>
> Look Steven, you are not stupid. There are two main interpretations of
> atheists play this stupid game of acting like they have no bias ? There
> is NO SUCH thing as an objective person. There are only biased persons
> who can be objective - the former does not exist. Your position is
> refuted from the get-go by the fact that you guys attempt to hide your
> objectively interpret complicated evidence if you cannot even admit
> what is not in dispute: everyone has bias which decides their
> interpretation of evidence.
>
your conclusions can be trusted, but this does not follow, even were I
to concede your premises (which I do not). Ray, I was raised a
creationist. I spent years shielding myself from books that argued for
evolution, and reading creationist texts instead, and all it
accomplished was showing me that creationists couldn't get the simplest
facts straight. I have seen the evidence from both points of view.
But no matter.
A Ku Klux Klan member admits his prejudices on race; ought I therefore
repose special trust in his (admittedly biased) insights on race?
Please note that I am *not* comparing you to a racist; I am merely
citing an example of how admitting a bias does nothing to make
conclusions reached from that bias more defensible.
>
> Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
> an opinion."
>
One hopes they kept the late Dr. Scott off juries, while he was still
eligible to serve on them. It seems to me that one can expose oneself
to evidence and conclude that it is insufficient to justify a
conclusion, and that one can revise an opinion in light of later
evidence. You and the late Dr. Scott, however, seem to deny this;
one's initial prejudices are all-determining. One wonders, given such
a state of mind, why one would bother to expose oneself to evidence in
the first place, if no evidence can alter or overrule one's initial
bias and presuppositions.
>
> Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> psychology. What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
> persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".
>
Then what he is saying is stupid and wrong, and I don't care how many
degrees he had to adorn and conceal his foolishness.
>
> We know your opinions about the evidence (supports atheism). The only
> issue is why are you afraid to admit it ?
>
My opinion is that the evidence supports common descent with
modification, and says nothing conclusive one way or the other about
God. You will be better able to argue with others' positions if you
first take the trouble to figure out what they are. You may even,
unlikely though you yourself seem to think it, learn something from
them.
>
> I am a theist because of the evidence.
>
Your own statements refute that; on your own telling, you are a theist
because of the way you filter the evidence through your own biases.
And I have seen very little to convince me that you have a detailed
knowledge of or much understanding of the evidence.
>
> > The question is, rather, if we
> > could actually show design, would that be any reason to suppose that
> > the Designer was the God of Genesis rather than one or more of the gods
> > of various other religious texts.
>
> Comparitive religion study answers this question. Dr. Scott had a Ph.D.
> minor in Comparitive Religion.
>
> "All major religions CLAIM their prophet speaks for God. Christianity
> is the only religion whose founder claimed to be God. Jesus was either
> a nut or exactly who He claimed to be. This "nut", prior to His death,
> claimed He would rise from the dead according to the promise of the
> Father." (Dr. Scott).
>
Actually, Buddhism doesn't claim that the Buddha spoke for God.
Hinduism does not, I think, rest on the teachings of any particular
prophets (although there are offshoots of Hinduism with gurus, who are
vaguely prophet-like). And Jesus' claim to deity presents us with more
than a dilemma (only two choices). *If* Jesus claimed to be God,
Creator and Lord of the universe, *then* he was either lying, or
insane, or in fact God (a trilemma, not a dilemma). *If* this claim
was put in his mouth after his death, or if Jesus claimed to be God in
some some nonliteral sense (note his quotation of an OT passage that
even human judges are "gods"), or if he took actions that his followers
assumed implied a claim to godhood, but which he did not assume implied
any such claim, then we have another situation entirely. We shall pass
lightly over the minnor problem that the claim Jesus rose from the
dead, itself, is among the points that an atheist would dispute.
>
> Millions of persons are not having an imaginary relationship with a
> non-existent Person. Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be.
>
You have argued, in the past, that the majority is almost always wrong.
What magic makes the subjective experience and opinions of millions of
people worthless, if they constitute a majority, but decisive if they
constitute a minority (and what if they constitute a plurality -- a
minority that is still larger than any other faction?)?
>
> But your question, in reality, is just an excuse. If Darwinists
> approached religion the same way they do science then you guys would
> already know these basic answers.
>
> > >
> > > I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
> > >
> > > > 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
> > >
> > > Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
> > > identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
> > > complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
> > >
> > I think you misunderstood the question, which was not, how do we
> > identify design, but how does the Designer decide on a design.
>
> You have misunderstood since your reinterpretation is not what Ken
> asked. I assume a person means what he says and says what he means. I
> suggest you do the same unless it is clear otherwise.
>
Ken claims he meant what I surmised he meant. Is your claim going to
be that he is lying about the meanings of his own statements?
>
> > For what it's worth, human designers try to avoid "ultra-complexity," in
> > favor of the simplest design that will do the job. Note, also, a
> > problem noted even by the father of ID theory, William Paley: humans
> > create complex designs because they can't make matter do some jobs
> > using simpler designs (i.e. you can't make a camera as simple as a
> > brick), but an omnipotent Designer could endow even the simplest
> > systems with any abilities He desired them to have (e.g. cause a brick
> > to be able to take pictures, e-mail them to your friends, and make
> > toast as well). Complexity (what Paley called "contrivance") is an
> > argument *against* the omnipotence of the Creator, as much as it is for
> > His intelligence.
>
> Here we have a Darwinist saying Paley argued against a Creator. You are
> horribly confused.
>
No, I am saying that Paley noted that his argument *for* a Creator had
a logical problem. Paley proposed a solution: God used "contrivance"
(specified complexity) when He did not need to, in order to impress us
with His wisdom and power. As another poster to this newsgroup pointed
out, this does not really escape the problem, since an omnipotent
Designer could impress us without contrivance, just as He could
accomplish any other goal without contrivance.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion: Paley argued for a Creator. As late as
> 1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed.
>
Actually, _Climbing Mount Improbable_ was published in 1996. That it
"failed" is merely your own opinion, and by your own concession, your
own opinion is biased, and in no way a necessary conclusion from the
evidence.
>
> > >
> > > > 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
> > > > question?
> > >
> > > It depends on how you define methodology. IF you are using the standard
> > > human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
> > > then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
> > > is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
> > > 1.
> > >
>
> > No, I think Ken means,
>
> Negative. Ken meant what he said and not what you think he should of
> said.
>
> > how does the work of design itself get done?
> > Humans need to make physical blueprints and notes to design anything
> > complex. They need to look at previous design work, modify, and test
> > it. It has been noted that even "design," as humans do it, looks a lot
> > like evolution through mutation and natural selection, although we
> > combine parts from different lineages more often than evolution does.
> > Do things like parahomologous and vestigial structures imply that the
> > Designer of life, likewise, had to copy and modify earlier design work?
>
> No modifications since it implies an original error was made.
>
Modification makes no such implication. If I design a passenger car,
and then modify the design to make a cargo truck, this does not imply
that either the passenger car was defective for its purpose, or that
making something for that purpose was an error. It implies that the
passenger car makes a poor cargo truck, unless it is modified, but that
is not an "error," but merely a demonstration that what is good for one
purpose can be bad for another.
>
> But if your bias requires such an interpretation then by all means.
>
You seem to understand neither my arguments nor Ken's questions.
>
> > >
> > > > 3. What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform?
> > >
> > > According to the Bible: the spoken word of the Designer is where His
> > > power resides.
> > >
> > That doesn't really answer the question of how the spoken word works,
> > or what effects in produces in the process of shaping matter into a new
> > species.
>
> Yes it does. I have a source for my view. What is your source for your
> disagreement ?
>
Ray, let us imagine that we have a video camera recording the creation
of Adam. What do we actually see and hear happening as God shapes Adam
out of the dust of the ground? Do we hear an actual, audible voice of
God, and if we play it back, do we get another human being shaped out
of the dust of the Earth?
>
> > > > 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
> > >
> > > Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
> > > species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
> > > of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
> > > References available upon request.
> > >
> > This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
> > produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory,
>
> No such thing has ever happened. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. The
> ghoulish tinkering you are alluding to produces sterile freaks that die
> outside of any protective environment.
>
The "freaks" are not sterile, and saying that they remain fruit flies
does not mean that speciation has not occurred. Humans remain
hominines, and apes, and mammals.
>
> Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier. This is why
> Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
> "Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales. Darwin had conducted
> extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
> generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.
>
That was not an example of "macroevolution." That was an example of
how behaviors can exist that might enable one species to move gradually
into a new niche, which could in turn provide selective pressure for
changes in morphology.
>
> We know Darwinism asserts that nature, behind our backs in the wild,
> crosses the barrier = not a shred of experimental evidence to support
> this atheistic need.
>
This "genetic barrier" is a figment of your imagination, or perhaps of
your failure of comprehension. You really do not understand many of
the things you read (which makes me wonder why I bother trying to
explain things to you). Now, I would consider, e.g. shared pseudogenes
and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates to be several
"shreds of evidence," and fossils which straddle any boundary you might
wish to draw between humans and apes to be other shreds of evidence,
but your bias tends to cause you to interpret evidence as not actually
existing.
>
> Ray
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
John Wilkins
theists, and the (recent) historical record numbers many more. *Creationist*
make bad scientists by definition, but that is because their epistemology is
the counsel of rejection of facts that fail to suit their theology.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I should make clear I was using his definition of "theists".
Although I must admit that I, for myself, always have doubts about any
scientist that professes a religious belief - I've just never been
able to work out how someone with enough brains to be a scientist
could possibly believe in fairy stories.
--
Bob.
Shane
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> snip
>
>>> What is an "athestic starting supposition"? All scientific positions
>>> start from the fact that science does not deal with supernatural influences.
>>> A 'supposition' that a supernatural being is involved is just not
>>> scientific.
>>>
>>
>> Again, this starting position sides with atheistic philosophy.
>
> Notice, no answer to my question. What is an "atheistic starting
> supposition"?
I'm fairly certain that it's when Ray starts each reply supposing that
all who disagree with him are atheists. That, of course, saves him from
needing to actually read what he is replying to. All he has to do is
apply his agree/disagree filter, skim the article to see which it is,
and then respond, with a "Brilliant" if it agrees, or a "Typical
atheist/darwinist rant etc. etc. etc." if it doesn't.
[...]
Walter Bushell
Is this an argument from personal incredulity? You know those go over
like a pregnant pole vaulter.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Ray Martinez
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1145727266.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > >> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:1145653003....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> snipping
> > > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What is dishonest about asking questions? They are all valid concerns.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Defending the dishonesty by changing the issue.... slightly. As you
> > > >> > know nobody said asking questions was dishonest. The dishonesty was
> > > >> > exposed when the questions were answered, at which point, you THEN
> > > >> > admitted they were really intended to smoke out a religious agenda.
>
> Ray.....are you actually saying that my dishonesty was determined by
> how you answered the question rather than by how I posed it?
>
No, Ken.
Your dishonesty was two-fold: to ask ulterior motive questions (a
ulterior motive that I predicted). As soon as I answered the questions,
you then outed yourself and confirmed my prediction. The second part of
your dishonesty is the standard Darwinian attempt to hide their bias,
that is, an attempt to assume that you define and speak for science.
Everyone has a bias and that bias determines their interpretation of
the same scientific evidence.
Your attempt at exposing a religious motive from any IDist/Sean
"silently" says you have no such bias in reverse.
The IDists are wrong for accepting the Darwinian establishments
atheistic bias in the first place by attempting the same thing.
Thanks for sharing your backround/bias.
I grew up strict Roman Catholic but after reaching adulthood I had a
born-again conversion experience and became a Protestant.
> I do admire people that have a strong spirituality and faith.....the
> belief in something felt deep within [yet unsupported by evidence] can
> be a comfort at times. However....belief in that which has been clearly
> demonstrated to be false is just plain stupid....and offers no comfort
> at all.
>
Christian faith is based upon the historic fact of the Resurrection and
the facts of God's word/Bible. I am sorry your bias blinds you to the
evidence.
Ray
Tristan Miller
In article <1145732576.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> psychology. […] Dr. Scott had a Ph.D. minor in Comparitive Religion.
Really? I didn't know it was possible to "minor" in anything when doing a
Ph.D. The Ph.D.s awarded by most university departments I'm familiar with
require the student to take only a very small number of courses (usually
less than ten), or in some cases none at all. The intent is for the
student to concentrate his studies on a single topic on which he will
ultimately write his thesis. (Some departments include a "breadth"
requirement forcing the student to take a few courses outside his subject
area, but "outside" in this case does not usually mean outside the
department itself.) You've mentioned before that Scott went to Stanford;
could you explain in more detail what a minor entails in the Stanford
philosophy and religion doctoral programs?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Ray Martinez
Steven J. wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Steven J. wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> >
> -- [snip]
> >
> > Look Steven, you are not stupid. There are two main interpretations of
> > the same scientific evidence in life: atheist and theist. Why do
> > atheists play this stupid game of acting like they have no bias ? There
> > is NO SUCH thing as an objective person. There are only biased persons
> > who can be objective - the former does not exist. Your position is
> > refuted from the get-go by the fact that you guys attempt to hide your
> > bias. Based on this fact you cannot be trusted to produce and
> > objectively interpret complicated evidence if you cannot even admit
> > what is not in dispute: everyone has bias which decides their
> > interpretation of evidence.
> >
> You seem to imply that because you are upfront about your bias, that
> your conclusions can be trusted, but this does not follow, even were I
> to concede your premises (which I do not). Ray, I was raised a
> creationist. I spent years shielding myself from books that argued for
> evolution, and reading creationist texts instead, and all it
> accomplished was showing me that creationists couldn't get the simplest
> facts straight. I have seen the evidence from both points of view.
> But no matter.
>
This commentary seeks a special exemption. You want your bias to not be
as such because it is based upon the correct interpretation of the
facts. Steven, EVERYONE desires this and thinks they deserve what you
want for the exact same reason.
Whats at issue presently is not which bias interprets the evidence
correctly. The issue is the Darwinian attempt to insist of not having a
bias via assuming they define and speak for science.
I did not say what your opening sentence distorts. I said anyone who
hides their bias automatically opens themself up to distrust. I do not
try to hide my bias, on the contrary, I insist my bias is based on the
evidence - a far cry from Darwinists who come out speaking for
science/inclusion of supernatural is not science/("hidden" atheism).
> A Ku Klux Klan member admits his prejudices on race; ought I therefore
> repose special trust in his (admittedly biased) insights on race?
> Please note that I am *not* comparing you to a racist; I am merely
> citing an example of how admitting a bias does nothing to make
> conclusions reached from that bias more defensible.
Again, you are defending the right to hide a bias and speak for
science.
At issue is Ken's ulterior motive questions which assume atheistic bias
defines and speaks for science.
I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion. The Great
Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
surpasses our own today. No scientist denies that the latest it could
have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC. Both
sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
Age.
The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
its tracks) is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed. The monument
incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
thousands of years later; and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth (the
designer knew the Earth was round). Modern man did not know the EXACT
dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
How did North African camel riding sun worshipping savages erect a
world wonder right out of the Stone Age or in the Stone Age ? (Your
Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
living in caves).
They didn't because the Bible says ancient men of this time period were
created by God ultra-intelligent: the sons of Adam.
The monument was already there when the Egyptian civilization was
founded by Mizraim circa 3000 BC.
> >
> > Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
> > an opinion."
> >
> One hopes they kept the late Dr. Scott off juries, while he was still
> eligible to serve on them. It seems to me that one can expose oneself
> to evidence and conclude that it is insufficient to justify a
> conclusion, and that one can revise an opinion in light of later
> evidence. You and the late Dr. Scott, however, seem to deny this;
> one's initial prejudices are all-determining. One wonders, given such
> a state of mind, why one would bother to expose oneself to evidence in
> the first place, if no evidence can alter or overrule one's initial
> bias and presuppositions.
Like the Great Pyramid evidence that you evos MUST evade ?
> >
> > Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> > psychology. What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
> > persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".
> >
> Then what he is saying is stupid and wrong, and I don't care how many
> degrees he had to adorn and conceal his foolishness.
Like we knew: evos disregard all evidence produced by scholarship that
conflicts with their needs.
> >
> > We know your opinions about the evidence (supports atheism). The only
> > issue is why are you afraid to admit it ?
> >
> My opinion is that the evidence supports common descent with
> modification, and says nothing conclusive one way or the other about
> God. You will be better able to argue with others' positions if you
> first take the trouble to figure out what they are. You may even,
> unlikely though you yourself seem to think it, learn something from
> them.
Its not a matter of opinion: Darwin rejected God and NS says Genesis
Creator and His record is wrong. The whole point of Darwin's theory.
I just defended a round earth against someone asserting it was flat.
You cannot be trusted.
Negative. I argue majorities found IN the Bible matched with their
counterparts in reality are wrong - big difference from your
distortion.
Negative. Dawkins attempted to answer Paley in 1986/Blind Watchmaker.
You have made a mistake. I own a copy.
They cannot reproduce on their own. Are you saying they can ?
> >
> > Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier. This is why
> > Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
> > "Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales. Darwin had conducted
> > extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
> > generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.
> >
> That was not an example of "macroevolution." That was an example of
> how behaviors can exist that might enable one species to move gradually
> into a new niche, which could in turn provide selective pressure for
> changes in morphology.
Same fucking thing.
> >
> > We know Darwinism asserts that nature, behind our backs in the wild,
> > crosses the barrier = not a shred of experimental evidence to support
> > this atheistic need.
> >
> This "genetic barrier" is a figment of your imagination, or perhaps of
> your failure of comprehension. You really do not understand many of
> the things you read (which makes me wonder why I bother trying to
> explain things to you). Now, I would consider, e.g. shared pseudogenes
> and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates to be several
> "shreds of evidence," and fossils which straddle any boundary you might
> wish to draw between humans and apes to be other shreds of evidence,
> but your bias tends to cause you to interpret evidence as not actually
> existing.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> -- [snip]
> >
> -- Steven J.
No genetic barrier exists ?
Denial of the most proven fact in biology because Steven knows it has
never been crossed in experimentation, yet Darwinists, who claim to
only base their views on evidence must ignore this fact because their
entire theory fails right here. In response, traditionally, this is
where the Darwinist says "how else did we get here ?"
(evolution-must-of-did-it).
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
> > Ray.....are you actually saying that my dishonesty was determined by
> > how you answered the question rather than by how I posed it?
> >
>
> No, Ken.
>
> Your dishonesty was two-fold: to ask ulterior motive questions (a
> ulterior motive that I predicted).
Actually, Ray, you just asserted an 'ulterior motive', but were unable
to show such.
>As soon as I answered the questions,
> you then outed yourself and confirmed my prediction. The second part of
> your dishonesty is the standard Darwinian attempt to hide their bias,
There is no attempt to hide bias by real scientists. Any scientist
worth his salt will freely admit his bias, but work to overcome that
bias.
> that is, an attempt to assume that you define and speak for science.
Ken's comments do reflect how science operates. Your own inabilty to
accept science for what it is, is your own bias.
>
> Everyone has a bias and that bias determines their interpretation of
> the same scientific evidence.
Scientists are aware of this, and work very hard to ovecome their
personal bias. Also, since science is an endeavor by many different
people, with many separate biases, no one bias is likely to win out.
Ultimately a scientist has to face the evidence, and if the evidence
does not support his belief, he must change his opinion.
>
> Your attempt at exposing a religious motive from any IDist/Sean
> "silently" says you have no such bias in reverse.
How is it a bias to show that the other person has a bias? Scientists
as a whole are not normally biased against religion. However science
does not operate the same way as religion does, and has different
rules.
>
> The IDists are wrong for accepting the Darwinian establishments
> atheistic bias in the first place by attempting the same thing.
There is no atheistic bias, in science. Science itself makes not
pronoucements on the existance or non existance of the supernatural.
It only deals with natural events, and natural causes. ID is not
science because it appeals to a supenatural being as an agent for
natural processes. That is not allowed by the conventions of science.
That is a practical choice by scientists, not a claim that there can
be no such influcence.
snip
> > Ray....I consider myself to be a non-denominational agnostic ;)
> >
> > I was raised by Christian parents....but I knew before I hit my teens
> > that Christianity was a fairy tale [at least the version presented to
> > me]. My parents raised me to be an independant thinker and that is
> > exactly what they got. I would like to think that there is a God of
> > some sort, but I really do not know. My own personal philosophy is most
> > closely matched by Buddhism. If that makes me an atheist in your
> > mind....the so be it.
> >
>
> Thanks for sharing your backround/bias.
>
> I grew up strict Roman Catholic but after reaching adulthood I had a
> born-again conversion experience and became a Protestant.
>
>
> > I do admire people that have a strong spirituality and faith.....the
> > belief in something felt deep within [yet unsupported by evidence] can
> > be a comfort at times. However....belief in that which has been clearly
> > demonstrated to be false is just plain stupid....and offers no comfort
> > at all.
> >
>
> Christian faith is based upon the historic fact of the Resurrection and
> the facts of God's word/Bible. I am sorry your bias blinds you to the
> evidence.
What evidence? You keep prattling on about "historic fact" and
"evidence" but when asked to provide that evidence, you simply refuse,
or try to pretend that the requests for evidence are a ruse. Why
not simply supply the evidence as requested? That woud be the honest
thing to do.
DJT
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
< snip >
> > If you find a dead human body with a carefully dissected chest and
> > the heart perfectly sectioned into four equal parts lying on his/her
> > abdomen, do you assume a non-deliberate cause until you know who did
> > this and why? - and with what kind of mechanism? Hmmmm? Really? Give me
> > a break! Even you would assume design in such a situation right off the
> > bat.
>
> Yes.....because I know that humans dissect chests....I know something
> about the designer, the process, and the intent.....
Actually, you may not know anything about the motives or methods of the
designer of such a murder. The motives could be wide ranging indeed -
as could the methods.
The fact is, humans do a lot of things that mindless processes also do.
It is just that you know that mindless processes do not dissect chests
and section hearts like this. If some mindless process could be found
that did do stuff like this to humans, you would no be able to
reasonably assume a human cause anymore. It is because you are fairly
confident that no mindless cause is capable of such a thing that you
assume design in this case. Compare this scenario with a human body
found all smashed up with a split open chest and the heart laying out
on the ground. Say that this body was found next to a tall building (as
was the first body with the dissected chest). As far as the condition
of this second body is concerned, would you conclude deliberate or
non-deliberate causes?
If you assume non-deliberate causes for the way in which the body
appears (we aren't discussing the possibility of deliberate suicide
here, just the condition of the body) what is the difference between
the two bodies that makes you think deliberate dissection on the one
hand and non-designed random smashing/impact damage on the other? You
know that the appearance of the second body could also be very
deliberately designed, in great detail - right? Both findings could
have been designed, yet only one is clearly designed without much
chance at a non-deliberate cause.
Understand the difference? No knowledge of identity or mechanism is
needed to reasonably conclude a deliberate dissection on the one hand
and a non-deliberate smashing on the other.
The same is true of other things - like a smashed window. A smashed
window could have a deliberate or a non-deliberate cause, but what
about a fixed window? How easy it is it to explain a fixed window with
any non-deliberate cause?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Tom McDonald
Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> In article <1145732576.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez wrote:
> > Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
>
> Really? I didn't know it was possible to "minor" in anything when doing a
> Ph.D. The Ph.D.s awarded by most university departments I'm familiar with
> require the student to take only a very small number of courses (usually
> less than ten), or in some cases none at all. The intent is for the
> student to concentrate his studies on a single topic on which he will
> ultimately write his thesis. (Some departments include a "breadth"
> requirement forcing the student to take a few courses outside his subject
> area, but "outside" in this case does not usually mean outside the
> department itself.) You've mentioned before that Scott went to Stanford;
> could you explain in more detail what a minor entails in the Stanford
> philosophy and religion doctoral programs?
It's pretty common for Ph.D. programs to allow or require a minor
subject, although I don't think the minor has to be included in the
dissertation. In these cases, a minor is not just a few courses, but
rather a set of requirements much like that of an undergrad minor.
This, being pretty common, doesn't suggest any uniqueness in the case
of Mr. Scott, who did, it seems, get a doctorate. No big deal--beyond
the obvious.
Steven J.
endless. I'll try to respond to all your major points.
Ray Martinez wrote
> Steven J. wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > You seem to imply that because you are upfront about your bias, that
> > your conclusions can be trusted, but this does not follow, even were I
> > to concede your premises (which I do not). Ray, I was raised a
> > creationist. I spent years shielding myself from books that argued for
> > evolution, and reading creationist texts instead, and all it
> > accomplished was showing me that creationists couldn't get the simplest
> > facts straight. I have seen the evidence from both points of view.
> > But no matter.
> >
>
> This commentary seeks a special exemption. You want your bias to not be
> as such because it is based upon the correct interpretation of the
> facts. Steven, EVERYONE desires this and thinks they deserve what you
> want for the exact same reason.
>
> Whats at issue presently is not which bias interprets the evidence
> correctly. The issue is the Darwinian attempt to insist of not having a
> bias via assuming they define and speak for science.
>
> I did not say what your opening sentence distorts. I said anyone who
> hides their bias automatically opens themself up to distrust. I do not
> try to hide my bias, on the contrary, I insist my bias is based on the
> evidence - a far cry from Darwinists who come out speaking for
> science/inclusion of supernatural is not science/("hidden" atheism).
>
Ah. I misunderstood you. Perhaps I still do; it is very odd to call
"bias" the views which you think are founded purely on evidence. If
you say that everyone has an inescapable bias, you imply that
objectivity is impossible and "fact" is indistiguishable from "faith."
So you ought not to say that if that is not what you believe.
Note that "natural" in science means simply that which is discoverable
and testable: that which one can form theories about. A Designer about
Whose methods and goals one could pose testable hypotheses would be, by
definition, "natural;" a Designer about Whom one could not form such
theories would, necessarily, be unaddressable by science (science could
find evidence neither for nor against such a Designer).
For example (although this may have nothing to do with your sort of
creationism), the idea of a global flood within human history could be
scientific, if one would consider that, e.g. the failure to find
cetaceans and ichthyosaurs together in the fossil record, or the
finding of evaporites between layers of water-laid sediments in the
supposed flood sediments, would refute the theory. It is the refusal
of YECs to concede that any possible evidence could refute their views
that keeps their views from being scientific. It is the refusal of ID
proponents to provide any testable theory of how intelligent design
works that keeps their ideas from being scientific.
>
-- [snip]
>
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion. The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today. No scientist denies that the latest it could
> have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
> scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC. Both
> sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
> Age.
>
My understanding is that the best scholarship (you know, the stuff
that, e.g. actually takes into account the names and dates of the
builders inscribed inside the pyramid) places it no earlier than 2700
BC, and not much later (although David Rohl, the maverick Egyptologist
who is as respected and competent as any of your favored experts,
places it about three centuries later -- and YECs like Answers in
Genesis sometimes put it even later). The pyramid has a square base,
but it deviates from a perfect scale slightly, but more than does any
modern building of comparable footprint, suggesting that its builders
were less adept at surveying than modern architects and builders (which
would make sense, if bronze-age people measured those corners by
stretching ropes rather than using space-age tech or supernatural
means).
>
> The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
> its tracks) is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed. The monument
> incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
> thousands of years later; and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth (the
> designer knew the Earth was round). Modern man did not know the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
>
One can, of course, take a host of different measurements and add,
subtract, multiply, and divide by each other or by multiples of 10
until one gets pi, or the radius of the Earth, or whatnot. It helps if
one is willing to misstate the measurements of the pyramid (I've read
your debates on the subject; you seem to depend on measurements of the
pyramid that disagree with standard measurements of its various
dimensions).
Of course, your argument that the Great Pyramid was built by the
biblical God (rather than some other deity, or space aliens, or
whatever) depends on even more arbitrary assumptions about how to
interpret the various passages and dimensions. Even if I granted your
premise (which I do not) that the Great Pyramid was beyond the
capabilities of bronze-age Egyptians, I see no reason to grant that it
thereby validates your interpretation of the Bible (which does not
even, so far as I can determine, mention the Great Pyramid).
The evidence for common descent is, mainly, the consistent nested
hierarchy of homologies and analogies in living organisms, including
everything from all, and only, animals with three bones in the middle
ear having mammary glands, to shared pseudogenes in humans and other
primates. Further evidence is found in faunal succession in the fossil
record (older strata contain suites of organisms less similar to those
living today than do more recent strata), and in fossils that straddle
boundaries between supposedly different "kinds." Again, even granting
your assertions about the scientific facts encoded in the architecture
of the Great Pyramid, it does nothing to contradict this evidence or
suggest some alternative explanation for it.
>
> How did North African camel riding sun worshipping savages erect a
> world wonder right out of the Stone Age or in the Stone Age ? (Your
> Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
> living in caves).
>
Humans had been making crude stone tools for over a million years; for
the last thousand centuries they had been making rather sophisticated
stone tools. The oldest cities are about ten thousand years old (and
not all Stone Age people lived in caves; many made huts or other
shelters of branches, mammoth tusks, etc.). On the other hand,
camel-riding came much later.
>
> They didn't because the Bible says ancient men of this time period were
> created by God ultra-intelligent: the sons of Adam.
>
> The monument was already there when the Egyptian civilization was
> founded by Mizraim circa 3000 BC.
>
No, this is probably not correct. By the way, do you think there was a
global flood, and if so, when was it?
>
-- [snip]
>
> > My opinion is that the evidence supports common descent with
> > modification, and says nothing conclusive one way or the other about
> > God. You will be better able to argue with others' positions if you
> > first take the trouble to figure out what they are. You may even,
> > unlikely though you yourself seem to think it, learn something from
> > them.
>
> Its not a matter of opinion: Darwin rejected God and NS says Genesis
> Creator and His record is wrong. The whole point of Darwin's theory.
>
Strictly speaking, natural selection says that inheritable variation
exists in every population, and that reproductive success of these
variants is not random, and that the mix of traits in populations can
change over time because of this. Did Gene Scott deny these things?
You need to distinguish among common descent, natural selection, and
natural selection as a mechanism for common descent.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > You have argued, in the past, that the majority is almost always wrong.
> > What magic makes the subjective experience and opinions of millions of
> > people worthless, if they constitute a majority, but decisive if they
> > constitute a minority (and what if they constitute a plurality -- a
> > minority that is still larger than any other faction?)?
>
> Negative. I argue majorities found IN the Bible matched with their
> counterparts in reality are wrong - big difference from your
> distortion.
>
I don't see the distinction between your argument and my "distortion,"
nor do I see any argument that the subjective experience of millions of
people automatically counts as strong evidence, since you do seem to
argue that millions of people can be crippled by their unacknowledged
subjective bias.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > This is not a matter of opinion: Paley argued for a Creator. As late as
> > > 1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed.
> > >
> > Actually, _Climbing Mount Improbable_ was published in 1996. That it
> > "failed" is merely your own opinion, and by your own concession, your
> > own opinion is biased, and in no way a necessary conclusion from the
> > evidence.
>
> Negative. Dawkins attempted to answer Paley in 1986/Blind Watchmaker.
> You have made a mistake. I own a copy.
>
I did not assert otherwise. I merely noted that Dawkins had made at
least one other attempted refutation of Paley a decade after the one
you cited (you said "as late as," possibly implying that you knew of no
later argument). It's not important.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > > This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
> > > > produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory,
> > >
> > > No such thing has ever happened. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. The
> > > ghoulish tinkering you are alluding to produces sterile freaks that die
> > > outside of any protective environment.
> > >
> > The "freaks" are not sterile, and saying that they remain fruit flies
> > does not mean that speciation has not occurred. Humans remain
> > hominines, and apes, and mammals.
>
> They cannot reproduce on their own. Are you saying they can ?
>
Yes. I think you have confused "males within one strain have evolved
to be intersterile with females of the wild strain" with "the evolved
fruit flies are sterile, even with each other." Inability to
interbreed with the wild type is a major reason that the evolved
laboratory strain was regarded as a new species.
>
> > >
> > > Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier. This is why
> > > Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
> > > "Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales. Darwin had conducted
> > > extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
> > > generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.
> > >
> > That was not an example of "macroevolution." That was an example of
> > how behaviors can exist that might enable one species to move gradually
> > into a new niche, which could in turn provide selective pressure for
> > changes in morphology.
>
> Same fucking thing.
>
Not really. Darwin was not suggesting that bears evolved into whales,
or that they might do so in the future; he was arguing, at most, that
bears that ate insects in the river could over time evolve into a
purely aquatic mammal "as monstrous as a whale," but not a whale. This
is not really an example of evolution, since Darwin is not asserting
that any evolution has or necessarily will take place in these bears
(only that, under certain circumstances, it could), and, again, is not
asserting that whales are closely related to bears.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > This "genetic barrier" is a figment of your imagination, or perhaps of
> > your failure of comprehension. You really do not understand many of
> > the things you read (which makes me wonder why I bother trying to
> > explain things to you). Now, I would consider, e.g. shared pseudogenes
> > and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates to be several
> > "shreds of evidence," and fossils which straddle any boundary you might
> > wish to draw between humans and apes to be other shreds of evidence,
> > but your bias tends to cause you to interpret evidence as not actually
> > existing.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > -- [snip]
> > >
> > -- Steven J.
>
> No genetic barrier exists ?
>
No one has demonstrated that one exists, or even that one ought to
exist. Your argument from genetic homeostasis won't work, since
genetic homeostasis operates even against the micro-evolution that you
admit occurs, so if any level of evolution occurs, homeostasis cannot
prevent evolution at even higher levels. You are in the position of
arguing that, because you've seen only a few seconds of a marathon,
that maybe the runners can cover a few dozen yards, but a "running
barrier" prevents them from running the full 26+ miles.
>
> Denial of the most proven fact in biology because Steven knows it has
> never been crossed in experimentation, yet Darwinists, who claim to
> only base their views on evidence must ignore this fact because their
> entire theory fails right here. In response, traditionally, this is
> where the Darwinist says "how else did we get here ?"
> (evolution-must-of-did-it).
>
You have rather bizarre notions of what has and has not been "proven."
-- Steven J.
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Whats at issue presently is not which bias interprets the evidence
> correctly. The issue is the Darwinian attempt to insist of not having a
> bias via assuming they define and speak for science.
???
of COURSE evolutionary biologists have a bias...the same one chemists
and physicists have...they interpret data based on the rules of
science. that is BIAS.
>
> I did not say what your opening sentence distorts. I said anyone who
> hides their bias automatically opens themself up to distrust. I do not
> try to hide my bias, on the contrary, I insist my bias is based on the
> evidence - a far cry from Darwinists who come out speaking for
> science/inclusion of supernatural is not science/("hidden" atheism).
gee, ray. perhaps if, instead of ASSERTING that supernaturalism is
science you could show a SINGLE example of supernaturalism in action
there's a reason the supernatural died as an explanation for nature. it
doesnt work!
> >
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion.
of course you do. religious fanatics...the islamists and christianists
across the world...hate reason, logic and science. you're just part of
that hatred.
The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today.
really? is he saying we couldn't build a pyramid??
wf3h
Seanpit wrote:
>>
> The fact is, humans do a lot of things that mindless processes also do.
> It is just that you know that mindless processes do not dissect chests
> and section hearts like this. If some mindless process could be found
> that did do stuff like this to humans, you would no be able to
> reasonably assume a human cause anymore.
and here is the collapse of ID. this single paragraph contains within
it the ruin of the neo-creationist movement
their argument is that, because no natural process has been identified
to process speciation, a NON natural process must be invoked. they are
saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
but can sean CONCLUSIVELY rule out a mindless process? the fact is, he
can't. he can't rule it out for ANY event in nature because we dont
know ALL the processes in nature.
if it's logical to conclude that, based on the absence of evidence,
intelligence must be involved, we can say that, based on the evidence,
an unknown mindless process is involved.
because neither has any idea HOW to create what we see in the natural
world.
>
> The same is true of other things - like a smashed window. A smashed
> window could have a deliberate or a non-deliberate cause, but what
> about a fixed window? How easy it is it to explain a fixed window with
> any non-deliberate cause?
>
sure. some unknown cause did it. we know unknown causes exist for many
aspects of nature unless you're saying god is reponsible for ALL
unknown events in nature.
Richard Clayton
Ahhh, so you admit ID proponents lie about their motives, and you are
content with that. Explain to me again how you have the moral high
ground, because I don't really grok that part.
> The IDers are trying to get the evidence of design and any challenge to
> Darwinism in public curriculum.
They could start by actually producing some evidence. In 20 years, they
haven't produced a single scrap-- just arguments from incredulity and
ignorance.
> Why is only Darwinism allowed ?
So far it's the only scientific theory supported by the evidence. If
you have an alternate scientific theory, potentially falsifiable and
which fits the evidence better than the theory of evolution, I'd love to
hear it.
I seem to recall asking you for one last summer, in our little debate,
right around one of the times you ran away. I think it was either the
second or third time you fled.
> Imagine
> that...in the USA with its Constitution that suddenly says only one
> origins theory is allowed by law ? What does Russia, China, N.Korea,
> Iran, and the Supreme Court have in common ? Answer: The same boss.
>
> My paper will answer this question and the rage will erupt like a
> volcano....stay tuned.
A bold statement. Time will tell.
Well, to be fair, most of the ID crowd has been uncharacteristically
willing to identify the designer lately. In December they found out that
the courts weren't fooled by their thin disguise, and now they're hoping
they can get more mileage by claiming that Christians are somehow being
persecuted (in this overwhelmingly Christian nation).
>>>> 4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?
>>> Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
>>> species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS.
>> How can we test this assertion?
>>
>
> Since Darwinian NS makes no sense, that is, death makes life appear out
> of nothing ....we have a source for out of nothing/Bible.
>
> You have no source but a blanket assertion that death produces life
> protected by the "it is science" card.
>
> My paper will answer this question too.
You apparently don't know a jot about evolution, despite a year of
posting and reading here. The theory of evolution does not explain how
life arose, any more than the theory of gravity explains how mass came
to exist.
If you are ignorant of even this very basic fact, I doubt your paper
will do much to overturn modern biology.
>>> Immutable fact
>>> of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
>> So, why couldn't this Boss use a naturalistic method of production?
>>
>
> Because there is no source for your claim. The source that we do have
> for the Boss says the method of production is supernatural. The
> evidence is overwhelming.
Religious texts are not evidence, Ray. We've discussed this before.
>>> References available upon request.
>> Which means Ray is unable to back up his claim.
>>>> 5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?
>>> "It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
>>> Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
>>> the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
>>> synonymously:
>>>
>>> Unmeasureable intelligence and power.
>> So, why not make simple and durable designs, instead of absurdly complex
>> ones?
>
> Because the former will be falsely interpreted as not being made by
> Designer. The latter is intended for those who occupy time to deduce
> that an invisible Designer made it.
>
> God knows He is invisible. He has decided that we only get to see Him
> if we pass our tests and make it to heaven. In the meantime the general
> revelation by which He reveals Himself is by what is seen. The Bible
> says He made what is seen in such a way that a person can easily deduce
> that it corresponds with Designer.
Why not just give us His mailing address, or phone number? If God
wanted to conclusively PROVE that He exists, it should be trivial.
Nobody doubts George W. Bush exists; I see him on television all the
time, and I can even write him a letter if I am so inclined.
Heck, I am pretty sure I can even prove my OWN existence, and I'm
nobody special. My email address is attached to every post I make in
talk.origins. (If that doesn't convince any readers, drop me an email
and I'll give you my phone number, we can chat for a while.)
Of course, most rational Christians deal with the problem by saying
that God wants faith, and proof obviates that. I have no problem with
that theology. Others say that God is so subtle, so wise, that our
science cannot detect him. I have no problem with that, either.
The real problem here is that you want to have your cake and eat it
too: You insist that the existence of God is obvious and cannot be
missed, but you also demand that some people do, in fact, miss it-- and
because God has hidden himself from these people! I don't think there
are many Christians out there who would agree with your theology.
>>> This nature can only be gauged
>>> and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
>>> power. That would be genius human designers.
>> That's rather a step down, from God, to human designers. Since human
>> designers use naturalistic methods of creating, can we assume that God does
>> as well?
>>
>>> Comparison:
>>>
>>> How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
>>> smallest storage structure ?
>> What metric are you using for "information"?
>>
>>> Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
>>> human cell.
>> The human cell has little or no storage space than any manufactured computer
>> can use. Therefore it's hardly any comparison.
>>
>>> The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
>>> have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
>>> cell.
>> Why couldn't God have used natural processes to create that cell?
>>
>> DJT
>
> The rest of your comments are absurd and knowingly false = inability to
> refute.
You can't refute something just by declaring it "absurd and knowingly
false." Of course, when you handwave away an entire section with a
one-liner and equals sign, it rather looks like you can't convincingly
refute any of it.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Ken Shackleton
Perhaps he was pushed, jumped....slipped and fell? However....you are
moving the goalposts again.....we were talking about natural causes
compared with the supernatural [since you have already cleared up that
the deisgner is God]. In both cases....the cause is natural....and in
order to determine what happened.....we need to investigate *how* it
happened.....ID doesn't care about that part....does it?
Richard Clayton
I would like to see some evidence to support that assertion. There are
plenty of competent scientists with religious beliefs.
Woland
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion. The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today. No scientist denies that the latest it could
> have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
> scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC. Both
> sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
> Age.
>
> The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
> its tracks) is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed. The monument
> incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
> thousands of years later; and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth (the
> designer knew the Earth was round). Modern man did not know the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
>
> How did North African camel riding sun worshipping savages erect a
> world wonder right out of the Stone Age or in the Stone Age ? (Your
> Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
> living in caves).
>
> They didn't because the Bible says ancient men of this time period were
> created by God ultra-intelligent: the sons of Adam.
>
> The monument was already there when the Egyptian civilization was
> founded by Mizraim circa 3000 BC.
This kind of thinking fails to take into account that there are
pyramids that are older than the Great Pyramid at Giza that you're
talking about and that some of the older pyramids weren't built very
well which shows a progression of methodology and technology. So there.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Tristan Miller wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> In article <1145732576.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez wrote:
>> > Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
>> > psychology. [...] Dr. Scott had a Ph.D. minor in Comparitive Religion.
>>
>> Really? I didn't know it was possible to "minor" in anything when doing a
>> Ph.D. The Ph.D.s awarded by most university departments I'm familiar with
>> require the student to take only a very small number of courses (usually
>> less than ten), or in some cases none at all. The intent is for the
>> student to concentrate his studies on a single topic on which he will
>> ultimately write his thesis. (Some departments include a "breadth"
>> requirement forcing the student to take a few courses outside his subject
>> area, but "outside" in this case does not usually mean outside the
>> department itself.) You've mentioned before that Scott went to Stanford;
>> could you explain in more detail what a minor entails in the Stanford
>> philosophy and religion doctoral programs?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tristan
>>
>> --
>> _
>> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
>> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
>> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
>
>Dr. Scott has an undergrad in History, MBA in Agricultural Geography,
>three Ph.D. minors in Psychology, Comparitive Religion, and Geography;
>the latter being an oral exam. Dr. Scott is the only person in
>Stanford's illustrious history to ask for, and be granted, an oral exam
>in Geography (having never taken a class) and pass. This earned him 45
>units and the minor which freed up the time for the Comparitive
>Religion minor. Dr. Scott's Ph.D. is in Philosophies of Education; a
>degree cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, yet the degree IS
>NOT from any department; but from the University itself - the hardest
>to earn and the last diplomas awarded at graduation (1957). Doctoral
>dissertation: theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. IQ: high 190s.
>
>Ray
Yep, meet his sort before. Puts together enough "easy pass" part
credit courses to earn a worthless degree.
Shame on Stanford for allowing the charlatan to get away with it. I
doubt very much that he would if he tried the same tricks today.
As for his IQ? Rubbish!
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
Look at Darwinian reaction to facts. Even a highly credentialed
Stanford Ph.D. is not when Darwinian needs are present. This post
proves that Darwinists are not loyal to any evidence whatsoever that
threatens their philosophy packaged as science.
You being a dishonest atheist and Darwinist makes Stanford and Dr.
Scott correct. Your approval would have proven them wrong.
Ray
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Tristan Miller wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > In article <1145732576.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Martinez wrote:
> > > Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
> >
> > Really? I didn't know it was possible to "minor" in anything when doing a
> > Ph.D. The Ph.D.s awarded by most university departments I'm familiar with
> > require the student to take only a very small number of courses (usually
> > less than ten), or in some cases none at all. The intent is for the
> > student to concentrate his studies on a single topic on which he will
> > ultimately write his thesis. (Some departments include a "breadth"
> > requirement forcing the student to take a few courses outside his subject
> > area, but "outside" in this case does not usually mean outside the
> > department itself.) You've mentioned before that Scott went to Stanford;
> > could you explain in more detail what a minor entails in the Stanford
> > philosophy and religion doctoral programs?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tristan
> >
> > --
> > _
> > _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> > / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> > (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
>
> three Ph.D. minors in Psychology, Comparitive Religion, and Geography;
> the latter being an oral exam. Dr. Scott is the only person in
> Stanford's illustrious history to ask for, and be granted, an oral exam
> in Geography (having never taken a class) and pass. This earned him 45
> units and the minor which freed up the time for the Comparitive
> Religion minor. Dr. Scott's Ph.D. is in Philosophies of Education; a
> degree cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, yet the degree IS
> NOT from any department; but from the University itself - the hardest
> to earn and the last diplomas awarded at graduation (1957). Doctoral
> dissertation: theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. IQ: high 190s.
>
> Ray
Of course, all this cleverness means that he was an excellent con-man.
He took you in, didn't he Ray?
RF
Richard Clayton
So, do you pay just as much attention to the beliefs of other Ph.D.s
from Stanford? What if you found that most of them found evolution the
best scientific explanation for biodiversity?
Ye Old One
Look at a creationist's reaction to facts.
> Even a highly credentialed
>Stanford Ph.D.
He ISN'T you pathetic moron - he just managed to get a Ph.D, in a
method that shows his true nature. I firmly believe that he would not
be able to get one using the same tricks today.
>is not when Darwinian needs are present. This post
>proves that Darwinists are not loyal to any evidence whatsoever that
>threatens their philosophy packaged as science.
>
>You being a dishonest atheist and Darwinist makes Stanford and Dr.
>Scott correct. Your approval would have proven them wrong.
>
>Ray
Talk about delusional!
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
snipping a lot
>
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual.
Scientists have no respect for Creationists because Creationists have earned
no respect. Rejecting contrary evidence that does not support one's
position is sure to lead to disrespect from real scientists.
> We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion.
That's the problem. Creationists 'know' that evolution is wrong, even
though the evidence does not support that claim. A real scientist accepts
what the evidence shows, not what they want to "know".
> The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today.
The Great Pyramid was constructed using fairly basic technology. Modern day
people could reproduce the Pyramids, what is lacking is the will to do so.
Modern buildings are constructed much faster, and much cheaper than the
Pyramids were.
> No scientist denies that the latest it could
> have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
> scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC.
Who's "best scholarship"? Remember Ray's standard of scholarship is rather
low.
> Both
> sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
> Age.
And the techniques used to build the pyramids don't go much beyond stone age
technology. The pyramids were built using muscle, levers, rollers, and a
few other simple machines.
>
> The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
> its tracks)
Even if the Great Pyramid were made with technology far beyond modern
humans, it's existance does not falsify human evolution. Where in the
theory of evolution does it say that modern human beings cannot use ropes,
levers, rollers, and teamwork? How does the Pyramid negate the massive
amount of fossil, genetic, anatomical, biochemical, biostratagraphic, and
other forms of evidence of human evolution?
> is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed.
The pyramid is not 'overlooked', it's simply not relevant. Your claim is
dismissed because it's obviously false.
> The monument
> incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
> thousands of years later;
As archeologists have shown, the use of a wheel to measure off distances
automatically incorporates PI into the measurements. That does not mean
that ancient Egyptians knew of, or understood the concept of PI.
>and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth
If one fudges the numbers to make it match up, that is.
> (the
> designer knew the Earth was round).
That's as maybe, but that could be due to simple observatation. Remember,
the people who built the pyramids were just as intelligent as modern day
humans.
>Modern man did not know the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
As has been pointed out to you before the last time you brought this up, the
diameter of the Earth was calculated by Erasthenes around 200 BC.
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Eratosthenes.html
The Soviet scientists who launched Sputnik already knew the exact dimentions
of the Earth, otherwise the satillilte would have crashed during orbit.
>
> How did North African camel riding sun worshipping savages erect a
> world wonder right out of the Stone Age or in the Stone Age ?
How does being from North Africa, riding camels (which Egyptians did not),
or worshiping the Sun (Sun worship post dated the Pyramids) prevent one from
using ropes, levers, rollers and teamwork? The ancient Egyptians were
many things but "savages" they were not. They had a highly developed
civilization, with plenty of manpower and plenty of will.
>(Your
> Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
> living in caves).
As you mentioned, the Egyptians were "right out of the Stone Age". That
means they were past it. In any case, they had copper and bronze tools at
the time the Pyramids were built, and were not living in caves.
>
> They didn't because the Bible says ancient men of this time period were
> created by God ultra-intelligent: the sons of Adam.
The Bible says nothing about humans being "ultra intelligent" The "sons of
Adam" were not directly created by God, but were born like any other human.
(One also must wonder if Adam and his sons were so "ultra intelligent" why
did Adam get talked into biting the apple?)
>
> The monument was already there when the Egyptian civilization was
> founded by Mizraim circa 3000 BC.
There's no evidence that the Great Pyramid was there first, or that Egypt
was founded by "Mizriam".
>
>
>> >
>> > Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
>> > an opinion."
>> >
>> One hopes they kept the late Dr. Scott off juries, while he was still
>> eligible to serve on them. It seems to me that one can expose oneself
>> to evidence and conclude that it is insufficient to justify a
>> conclusion, and that one can revise an opinion in light of later
>> evidence. You and the late Dr. Scott, however, seem to deny this;
>> one's initial prejudices are all-determining. One wonders, given such
>> a state of mind, why one would bother to expose oneself to evidence in
>> the first place, if no evidence can alter or overrule one's initial
>> bias and presuppositions.
>
> Like the Great Pyramid evidence that you evos MUST evade ?
There is no need to "evade" Great Pyramid claims of Mr. Scott, as they are
irrelevant to the scientific evidence of evolution. Even if everything
that Mr. Scott stated about the Great Pyramid were true, it does not affect
the massive amount of physical evidence for human evolution.
>
>> >
>> > Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
>> > psychology. What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
>> > persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".
>> >
>> Then what he is saying is stupid and wrong, and I don't care how many
>> degrees he had to adorn and conceal his foolishness.
>
> Like we knew: evos disregard all evidence produced by scholarship that
> conflicts with their needs.
Ray, assertions, and wild speculations about the Great Pyramid does not
amount to "scholarship". Having a PhD in "Philosophies of Education" does
not make one an expert in general philosophy, religion, or psychology.
Failing to publish any significant work in any of those diciplines also
indicates that one was not a scholar of any renoun.
snipping
>
> Its not a matter of opinion: Darwin rejected God
Wrong. Darwin did not reject God.
> and NS says Genesis
> Creator and His record is wrong.
Natural selection says no such thing. It's the evidence of biology,
geology, cosmology, chemistry and physics that contradicts a literal reading
of Genesis. A legendary creation account can hold truths, without it
being scientifically accurate. Therefore science does not say that the
"Genesis Creator" is wrong, just not science.
> The whole point of Darwin's theory.
As you have been informed numerous times, the whole point of Darwin's theory
was to explain the evidence, and the observations Darwin made. Darwin had
no desire to reject God, or to falsify the Bible.
>
> I just defended a round earth against someone asserting it was flat.
No, you merely asserted your personal opinions, without any backing, and
expected everyone to accept them as if they had some kind of evidence to
support them.
> You cannot be trusted.
Steven appears to be much more trustworthy than Ray.
snip
>> The "freaks" are not sterile, and saying that they remain fruit flies
>> does not mean that speciation has not occurred. Humans remain
>> hominines, and apes, and mammals.
>
> They cannot reproduce on their own. Are you saying they can ?
Yes, the species of fruit fly that evolved in the lab can and do reproduce
"on their own" with other members of their population. They can't
reproduce with members of their parent population, which shows they are a
separate species.
snip
>> That was not an example of "macroevolution." That was an example of
>> how behaviors can exist that might enable one species to move gradually
>> into a new niche, which could in turn provide selective pressure for
>> changes in morphology.
>
> Same fucking thing.
Looks like someone is getting fustrated......
snip
> No genetic barrier exists ?
That's correct. No genetic barrier exists to prevent speciation.
>
> Denial of the most proven fact in biology because Steven knows it has
> never been crossed in experimentation,
Actually, I'm sure Steven is familiar with the many observational studies
that have shown the species "barrier" being crossed. The fruit fly
experiments above are just one such study.
>yet Darwinists, who claim to
> only base their views on evidence must ignore this fact because their
> entire theory fails right here.
There is no "fact" to ignore. Your claim is false.
> In response, traditionally, this is
> where the Darwinist says "how else did we get here ?"
No, the traditional response has been to point out where you are wrong.
> (evolution-must-of-did-it).
Evolution is the known process that has been observed to "did it".
DJT
>
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip yadda yadda>
Write your paper. You are wasting time trying to shore up Scott's
reputation.
If you are right about the effect of your paper, you will have done all
the defending of him that's needed.
If you are wrong about the effect of your paper, none of your current
yadda-yadda about how great he is will have been meaningful anyway.
Shit or get off the pot, Ray. Shit or get off the pot.
Personally, I don't think you have the goods, and are looking for a
reason to quit and never present your paper. But you can prove me wrong
by going into your closet, writing your paper, and coming back here
when it's done.
No one, of course, will be holding their breath.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I have been a life-long student of Dr. Scott. I know almost everything
>about his ministry.
I fell very, VERY, sorry for you Ray.
Now bog off and don't come back until your paper is ready.
--
Bob.
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Let me repeat: I said I would post no more here (at T.O.) starting May
> 1 until my paper is up.
Why wait? Why not put the effort you are wasting here now into your
paper? Writing is writing, and I'd think your most essential writing
would be the stuff that vindicates Scott, and proves you right all
along.
<snip>
Tristan Miller
In article <1145923911.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> Let me repeat: I said I would post no more here (at T.O.) starting May
> 1 until my paper is up.
Does this mean we have your permission to cancel any of your posts that are
made before your paper appears?
Richard Clayton
Oh, I am sure he will post SOMETHING here eventually. It may be
inarticulate, factually incorrect, and laughably short for the labor of
nearly a year-- but he'll post SOMETHING. Ray's ego demands it.
Dana Tweedy
> 1 until my paper is up.
That should last till about May 2. Then we will get some other excuse why
the paper won't be done.
> After this date my next post will be a one week
> notice post; then the next post after that will be a topic entitled:
> "Dr. Gene Scott's Invulnerable Refutation of Darwinism" which will
> contain the link to my work.
By that time we should all be collecting our pensions.....
DJT
Greg G.
Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> In article <1145923911.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez wrote:
> > Let me repeat: I said I would post no more here (at T.O.) starting May
> > 1 until my paper is up.
>
> Does this mean we have your permission to cancel any of your posts that are
> made before your paper appears?
That's a good one. We've already fixed Google so it links to the wrong
post in the thread just for him.
--
Greg G.
Like all dreamers, I mistook disenchantment for truth.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Let me repeat: I said I would post no more here (at T.O.) starting May
>1 until my paper is up. After this date my next post will be a one week
>notice post; then the next post after that will be a topic entitled:
>"Dr. Gene Scott's Invulnerable Refutation of Darwinism" which will
>contain the link to my work.
>
>Ray
Let ME repeate. Why wait. Bog off and finish your paper NOW. Stop
wasting time.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1145923911.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>> On 24 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>> >I have been a life-long student of Dr. Scott. I know almost everything
>>> >about his ministry.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fell very, VERY, sorry for you Ray.
>>>
>>> Now bog off and don't come back until your paper is ready.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob.
>>
>> Let me repeat: I said I would post no more here (at T.O.) starting May
>> 1 until my paper is up.
>
>That should last till about May 2. Then we will get some other excuse why
>the paper won't be done.
>
>> After this date my next post will be a one week
>> notice post; then the next post after that will be a topic entitled:
>> "Dr. Gene Scott's Invulnerable Refutation of Darwinism" which will
>> contain the link to my work.
>
>By that time we should all be collecting our pensions.....
>
My grandchildren may be collecting their pension by the time he
finishes. How overdue is it now?
--
Bob.
Von R. Smith
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145835047.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> snipping a lot
<snip>
>
> >(Your
> > Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
> > living in caves).
>
> As you mentioned, the Egyptians were "right out of the Stone Age". That
> means they were past it. In any case, they had copper and bronze tools at
> the time the Pyramids were built, and were not living in caves.
Caves?! Isn't Egypt in Africa? ;)
Ray Martinez
Steven J. wrote:
> Please excuse me if I snip massively; otherwise this post will seem
> endless. I'll try to respond to all your major points.
>
> Ray Martinez wrote
> > Steven J. wrote:
> >
> -- [snip]
> >
> > > You seem to imply that because you are upfront about your bias, that
> > > your conclusions can be trusted, but this does not follow, even were I
> > > to concede your premises (which I do not). Ray, I was raised a
> > > creationist. I spent years shielding myself from books that argued for
> > > evolution, and reading creationist texts instead, and all it
> > > accomplished was showing me that creationists couldn't get the simplest
> > > facts straight. I have seen the evidence from both points of view.
> > > But no matter.
> > >
> >
> > This commentary seeks a special exemption. You want your bias to not be
> > as such because it is based upon the correct interpretation of the
> > facts. Steven, EVERYONE desires this and thinks they deserve what you
> > want for the exact same reason.
> >
> > Whats at issue presently is not which bias interprets the evidence
> > correctly. The issue is the Darwinian attempt to insist of not having a
> > bias via assuming they define and speak for science.
> >
> > I did not say what your opening sentence distorts. I said anyone who
> > hides their bias automatically opens themself up to distrust. I do not
> > try to hide my bias, on the contrary, I insist my bias is based on the
> > evidence - a far cry from Darwinists who come out speaking for
> > science/inclusion of supernatural is not science/("hidden" atheism).
> >
> Ah. I misunderstood you. Perhaps I still do; it is very odd to call
> "bias" the views which you think are founded purely on evidence. If
> you say that everyone has an inescapable bias, you imply that
> objectivity is impossible and "fact" is indistiguishable from "faith."
> So you ought not to say that if that is not what you believe.
>
Mindless misrepresentation attempting to justify his bias via demanding
a special exemption = we have a Darwinist - it is confirmed.
Everyone has a bias - not a matter of opinion. Biased persons
(everyone) have the capacity to be objective. Darwinists are exposed
dishonest from the get-go by attempting to hide their biases. Atheists
with "no bias" is about as inconspicuous as a bull in a china shop. The
same with Darwinists. Your bias is an anti-Biblical agenda, which is
fine as long as you do not try and conceal; but we know you attempt
just the opposite: mindlessly assert ToE has nothing to do with
disproving the Bible = Earth is flat assertion. Now we have blatant
concealment and dishonesty = presence of Darwinist confirmed. You
cannot be trusted as 40 percent of the population knows.
Concealment is confirmed when Darwinists assume to speak for and define
science - a definition that makes them "objective" and their opponents
just the opposite. A definition that surreptitiously "objectifies"
their bias (atheist philosophy) and attempts to place everyone else on
the defensive.
Everyone claims their view is based upon the evidence. Anyone who
insists they have no bias, which determines their interpretation, is a
liar attempting to conceal their bias because they believe the
acknowledgement thereof eviscerates their interpretation from being
seen as correct. This is why atheists and Darwinists attempt to hide
their bias "as science".
We theists plainly declare our bias and say it is based upon all of the
evidence. Atheists never declare their bias but assume to speak for
science = deception = indigenous attribute of Satan = evidence of
Biblical claim supporting the effects of his presence. Objective
persons know the Bible claims/declares that all secular is controlled
by Satan.
Ray
SNIP subjective and sourceless assertions
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> Ah. I misunderstood you. Perhaps I still do; it is very odd to call
>> "bias" the views which you think are founded purely on evidence. If
>> you say that everyone has an inescapable bias, you imply that
>> objectivity is impossible and "fact" is indistiguishable from "faith."
>> So you ought not to say that if that is not what you believe.
>>
>
> Mindless misrepresentation attempting to justify his bias via demanding
> a special exemption = we have a Darwinist - it is confirmed.
I notice you don't even attempt to deal with Steven's refutations. You
simply apply ad hominem and hope it goes away.
>
> Everyone has a bias - not a matter of opinion
Ray, saying it's "not a matter of opinion" does not make your opinion any
more sensible, or correct.
> Biased persons
> (everyone) have the capacity to be objective. Darwinists are exposed
> dishonest from the get-go by attempting to hide their biases.
All you have done is assert that "Darwinists" try to hide their biases, even
when offered evidence to the contrary.
> Atheists
> with "no bias" is about as inconspicuous as a bull in a china shop. The
> same with Darwinists. Your bias is an anti-Biblical agenda,
Neither atheists, or "Darwinists" tend to have an "anti-Bible" agenda.
Atheists don't oppose the bible, they simply don't accept it. "Darwinists"
don't oppose the Bible either, as it's irrelevant to science.
> which is
> fine as long as you do not try and conceal; but we know you attempt
> just the opposite: mindlessly assert ToE has nothing to do with
> disproving the Bible
That's not a "mindless assertion", it's a fact. The theory of evolution
explains the evidence. It's the evidence that disproves a literal reading
of Genesis. Even that does not disprove the Bible as a religious text, as
science and religion are separate fields.
> = Earth is flat assertion.
It's largely the Creationists who assert the Earth is flat (or a few
thousand years old) in direct contradiction to the evidence.
> Now we have blatant
> concealment and dishonesty
Not from Steven at least....
> = presence of Darwinist confirmed. You
> cannot be trusted as 40 percent of the population knows.
Now Ray is trying appeal to popularity, even though 40% of the population
has not stated they distrust scientists.
>
> Concealment is confirmed when Darwinists assume to speak for and define
> science
Who else can define science than the people who use it?
> - a definition that makes them "objective" and their opponents
> just the opposite. A definition that surreptitiously "objectifies"
> their bias (atheist philosophy) and attempts to place everyone else on
> the defensive.
As has been explained many times, science is not "atheist philosophy".
Anyone is welcome to use science, regardless of that person's religious
beliefs.
>
> Everyone claims their view is based upon the evidence.
But scientists can actually support that claim.
> Anyone who
> insists they have no bias, which determines their interpretation, is a
> liar attempting to conceal their bias because they believe the
> acknowledgement thereof eviscerates their interpretation from being
> seen as correct. This is why atheists and Darwinists attempt to hide
> their bias "as science".
Atheists and "Darwinists" never attempt to hide personal bias. But
science is a way of overcoming personal bias. That is why it's used, and
used successfully. Creationists want to respect that science has earned,
without applying the principles that has made science successful.
>
> We theists
Why the royal "we" Ray? Do you really imagine you are speaking for anyone
other than yourself?
>plainly declare our bias and say it is based upon all of the
> evidence.
Which, as you know, is not true. Your bias requires you to ignore evidence
that does not favor your beliefs. That's why you can't accept such facts
as intermediate fossils.
>Atheists never declare their bias but assume to speak for
> science
Atheists do not claim to speak for science, as science is made up of many
people, of different faiths (or no faith). The way science works is to
disallow any belief that cannot be backed up by evidence. That includes
appeal to the supernatural.
= deception = indigenous attribute of Satan = evidence of
> Biblical claim supporting the effects of his presence. Objective
> persons know the Bible claims/declares that all secular is controlled
> by Satan.
Here, Ray is cliaming that everyone is biased, then appeals to "objective"
persons supporting his own bias. Is anyone fooled by this?
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP subjective and sourceless assertions
Meaning that Ray is unable to deal honestly with those points.
DJT
>
Ken Rode
> Steven J. wrote:
<snip discussion>
> Mindless misrepresentation attempting to justify his bias via demanding
> a special exemption = we have a Darwinist - it is confirmed.
<snip Ray's frothing-at-the-mouth>
> We theists plainly declare our bias and say it is based upon all of the
> evidence. Atheists never declare their bias but assume to speak for
> science = deception = indigenous attribute of Satan = evidence of
> Biblical claim supporting the effects of his presence. Objective
> persons know the Bible claims/declares that all secular is controlled
> by Satan.
Ray, I have yet to see that you completely understand what your own
biases consist of. In fact, I rather expect that you simply are not
introspective enough to have a first clue what Ray Martinez is all
about. So, when you "declare your bias," you are lying to yourself first
and foremost. Your beliefs are not "based upon all of the evidence" --
indeed, evidence that doesn't agree with your already-established views
is denied or hand-waved away. You don't deal with evidence: you assert
that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't mean what it means.
You come across as being mentally about 6 years old, Ray. More
specifically, you don't exhibit the mental maturity that any adult
should. If anyone is controlled by Satan (who doesn't exist, by the
way), it would be you.
I really have mized feelings about your paper when it comes out, Ray. I
don't want to see you embarrassed because of the complete weakness of
the arguments that you will present, but unfortunately I have no choice.
After all, it will have been you that wrote it. Not to worry, though --
your mental immaturity will insist that any and all criticisms will
prove the paper correct.
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > If you find a dead human body with a carefully dissected chest and
> > > > the heart perfectly sectioned into four equal parts lying on his/her
> > > > abdomen, do you assume a non-deliberate cause until you know who did
> > > > this and why? - and with what kind of mechanism? Hmmmm? Really? Give me
> > > > a break! Even you would assume design in such a situation right off the
> > > > bat.
> > >
> > > Yes.....because I know that humans dissect chests....I know something
> > > about the designer, the process, and the intent.....
> >
> > Actually, you may not know anything about the motives or methods of the
> > designer of such a murder. The motives could be wide ranging indeed -
> > as could the methods.
> >
> > The fact is, humans do a lot of things that mindless processes also do.
> > It is just that you know that mindless processes do not dissect chests
> > and section hearts like this. If some mindless process could be found
> > that did do stuff like this to humans, you would no be able to
> > reasonably assume a human cause anymore. It is because you are fairly
> > confident that no mindless cause is capable of such a thing that you
> > assume design in this case. Compare this scenario with a human body
> > found all smashed up with a split open chest and the heart laying out
> > on the ground. Say that this body was found next to a tall building (as
> > was the first body with the dissected chest). As far as the condition
> > of this second body is concerned, would you conclude deliberate or
> > non-deliberate causes?
>
> Perhaps he was pushed, jumped....slipped and fell?
Read my next paragraph where I point out to you that the resulting
condition of the body has nothing at all to do with if the potential
fall from the building was deliberate or not. The condition of the body
was clearly the result of non-deliberate interactions of the body with
the ground. The impact of the body with the ground did not plan out
exactly how to "modify" the body in the way that it did. The
modifications that did in fact result were clearly random and "fractal"
in nature. They were nothing like the very deliberate disection
incisions that were found on the other body.
On the one hand we have very clear evidence of deliberate modification
of a murder victim. On the other hand we have very clear evidence of
non-deliberate modification of a body via the non-deliberate forces of
strong impact.
This is how forensic science works and can tell the difference between
deliberate and non-deliberate activity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
>
> Mindless misrepresentation attempting to justify his bias via demanding
> a special exemption = we have a Darwinist - it is confirmed.
>
> Everyone has a bias - not a matter of opinion. Biased persons
> (everyone) have the capacity to be objective. Darwinists are exposed
> dishonest from the get-go by attempting to hide their biases.
which is nonsensical. since scientists are darwinists (by
definition...at least 99.4% of scientists are), one need only look at a
scientist BEING a scientist to see s/he has a scientific bias.
Atheists
> with "no bias" is about as inconspicuous as a bull in a china shop.
bigotry. why do so many christianists hate atheists? what IS it with
this bigotry?
>
> Concealment is confirmed when Darwinists assume to speak for and define
> science - a definition that makes them "objective" and their opponents
> just the opposite. A definition that surreptitiously "objectifies"
> their bias (atheist philosophy) and attempts to place everyone else on
> the defensive.
vague, uninspired generality showing lack of thought...stereotyping...
>
> Everyone claims their view is based upon the evidence. Anyone who
> insists they have no bias, which determines their interpretation, is a
> liar attempting to conceal their bias because they believe the
> acknowledgement thereof eviscerates their interpretation from being
> seen as correct. This is why atheists and Darwinists attempt to hide
> their bias "as science".
more anti-atheist bigotry. there is nothing wrong with being an
atheist.
>
> We theists plainly declare our bias
you don't speak for all theists. who the hell died and left YOU to
speak for god and his believers?
Ken Shackleton
Murder victim? I think that he died of a heart attack and a passing
doctor performed an emergency autopsy in the street.....no murder there
at all unless you have other evidence to indicate that the cause of
death was at the hands of another person....if so, then perhaps you can
determine the method used to commit the crime.....and just perhaps you
would be interested in finding out who was responsible.
> On the other hand we have very clear evidence of
> non-deliberate modification of a body via the non-deliberate forces of
> strong impact.
OK....so the body was crushed by the force of impact, good initial
hypothesis....now the fun part begins....put it to the test.....*how*
did it happen, who did it, and why did they do it.....
>
> This is how forensic science works and can tell the difference between
> deliberate and non-deliberate activity.
Forensic science seeks to determine what has happened to see if a crime
was committed....it is interested in *all* the details that can be
gleaned and determined, this is the only method for reaching a
conclusion with any confidence....and if the death is a murder...then
forensic science attempts to determine method, intent, and most
importantly.....the murderer.....
If forensic science was done in the model of ID....once it had
determined that this was an event of designed intent...a murder....case
closed....it wouldn't care about the how, the who, or the why....
Ken
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Tristan Miller
In article <1145835047.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion. The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today. No scientist denies that the latest it could
> have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
> scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC. Both
> sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
> Age.
>
> The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
> its tracks) is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed. The monument
> incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
> thousands of years later;
Who alleges this? Certainly no mathematical historian I've ever
encountered. It's been known since the discovery of the Rhind papyrus in
1858 that the Egyptians had a respectable approximation to pi by 2000 BCE.
This is some 1300 years *before* what is commonly regarded as the
beginning of the Ancient Greek civilization, and 1700 years before
Archimedes. In the intervening period, pi was discovered (probably
independently) and used by the Babylonians and Indians.
> and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth (the
> designer knew the Earth was round). Modern man did not know the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
Define "dimensions". Do you mean the circumference at the equator? at
another line of latitude? at all lines of latitude? through the poles at
a particular meridian? of any great circle? of any circle? Do you mean
the distance to the centre at a particular point on the surface? at all
points? at mean sea level?
Define "exact". Do you mean to within 5% accuracy? 1%? 0.1%? 0.00001%?
To the nearest kilometre? metre? centimetre? millimetre? nanometre?
Something tells me that not even today's scientists, let alone Sputnik-era
ones, could give you any "dimension" of the earth to the nearest
nanometre.
Several ancient and medieval civilizations produced estimates for various
dimensions of the earth to very respectable degrees of accuracy --
certainly high enough to produce scale models for things such as maps,
orreries, and astronomical calendars.
Zachriel
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Steven J. wrote:
>> > > > Ken Shackleton wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>
> I know Darwinists have no respect for Creationism - the feeling is
> mutual. We know you are wrong - not a matter of opinion. The Great
> Pyramid (singular) is physical evidence of technology and science that
> surpasses our own today. No scientist denies that the latest it could
> have been built is between 2700 and 3100 BC, however, the best
> scholarship places the erection anywhere from 4000 to 12000 BC. Both
> sets of figures are either in the Stone Age or fresh out of the Stone
> Age.
>
> The point is THIS physical evidence (which falsifies human evolution in
> its tracks) is fraudulently overlooked and dismissed. The monument
> incorporates pi, allegedly not discovered until the Greeks did
> thousands of years later;
Pi is extremely easy to generate. Take a string of specified length, R. Put
in pin in one end and use the string to draw or etch a circle on a piece of
wood. Cut out the circle to make a wheel of radius R. Mark a point on the
edge of the wheel. Now roll the wheel along the ground, counting the
revolutions. Each revolution will trace 2R*pi in length. Any civilization
with the wheel can and will do this. Add an axel and a handle to the wheel
and measuring distances for surveying purposes is quite convenient.
Concerning claims that the ancients couldn't have calculated true North with
any accuracy. Take a long stick. Use a plumb line (a weight on a string) to
erect the stick vertically. Now trace the shadow of the stick as the Sun
crosses the sky. The apex of this curve will be true North. The longer the
stick, the more accurate the measurement. Erect a 75 feet tall, 263 ton
stone obelisk for best results.
Now to make sure the foundation of your pyramid or obelisk is flat, fill the
area with water. And so on. There are all sorts of easy tricks that someone
with the wheel and the ability to irrigate can discover.
> and the EXACT dimensions of the Earth (the
> designer knew the Earth was round). Modern man did not know the EXACT
> dimensions of the Earth until 1957 Sputnik data.
>
> How did North African camel riding sun worshipping savages erect a
> world wonder right out of the Stone Age or in the Stone Age ? (Your
> Stone Age has mankind just learning how to invent crude tools and
> living in caves).
<snip>
The hard way. With stone and copper tools, rope, water, and ingenuity. Other
civilizations built similar monumental structures.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Kim G. S. Øyhus
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I am a declared Creationist; therefore; answers to questions:
>
>> 1. What criteria is used to come up with a particular design?
>
>Ultra-complexity; with the intent that the observance and
>identification of such will lead an objective mind to conclude that the
>complexity could only have been produced by Mind.
Randomness is the most complex stuff there is, per definition.
Randomness is ultra-complex, since it is maximally complex.
Your Designer is identical to randomness.
>> 2. What methodology is used to actually design the lifeform in
>> question?
>
>It depends on how you define methodology. IF you are using the standard
>human engineering method of durable and simple as possible is best,
>then the latter is not the methodology of the Designer but the former
>is. The latter (simple) is explained by the answer given to question #
>1.
You have misunderstood intelligence. Randomness is not a sign of
intelligence. Simpleness is a sign of intelligence.
Kim0
Kim G. S. Øyhus
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>On the one hand we have very clear evidence of deliberate modification
>of a murder victim. On the other hand we have very clear evidence of
>non-deliberate modification of a body via the non-deliberate forces of
>strong impact.
>
>This is how forensic science works and can tell the difference between
>deliberate and non-deliberate activity.
But you do not know what science is, so you cannot know that about
forensic science.
I know how science works, and that forensic science works by building
knowledge about how people do stuff and how nature du stuff, and use
that knowledge to guess.
For example: People are known to cut people with knives, while nature
are known to not do that. This is built on experience and observation,
not on principles. People have seen people cut people with knives.
This is how that is known.
Kim0