Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts.

On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts.
>

Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports
the science denial.

Ron Okimoto

On 12/30/23 6:47 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>
>
> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
> the science denial.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

This is the referene to the "good work".
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01383-y

RonO wrote:
> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>
>
> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
> the science denial.
>
If intellignet design is the answer, then trying to find alternative
explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
ancestor.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>RonO wrote:
>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>
>>
>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>> the science denial.
> >
>If intellignet design is the answer
>
It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
>
>, then trying to find alternative
>explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>ancestor.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>
>> RonO wrote:
>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>> the science denial.
>>>
>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>
> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
> science.
>
Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view, of
the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed creation
(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
>>
>> , then trying to find alternative
>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>> ancestor.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of
> modern science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In
> view, of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
> creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
> for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be
> an exercise in futility.

<snip>

Creationist theology was _not_ the original explanation for the
creatures existing in this world. Creationism had several primitive
forms among the peoples of the ancient world. The ancient Israelites
who wrote the Bible books did not believe in Christian creationism and
all of those prophets would view modern creationist ideology as
blasphemy. Genesis is about the ordering of God's invisible creation,
which was to be done before any final ordering of the visible creation
at the day of the resurrection:

(Colossians 1:15)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Jesus is the FIRST born of EVERY creature. This destroys creationism.
It tells us when the creation began: 3BC. No creatures were born or
created before Jesus. He is the FIRST of the living creatures. So you
can see, the Christian definition of, 'living creature' is wrong.

And Paul even wrote about this subject of heretical creationism:

"For the INVISIBLE things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things."

The creationsistas are looking at visible things with a darkened mind.
Paul says to look to the INVISIBLE things in the creation to understand
the living things that God is making.

The problem with intelligent design is that like the evolution
superstition both suppose to define life. The dead cannot define what
is alive. Just because something moves or speaks does not prove that it
is alive. That which is born from above is alive. That which is not
born from above is dead, being lost in lawlessness.

That which is decaying is not alive. It is already dead.

The 'debate' will go nowhere because both contestants are already dead.

Evolution vs creationism is a false dichotomy. It presupposes there are
only two options, each of which serves an agenda. Both ideologies are
the result of men with agendas cooking up a religion to bolster their
pre-conceived agendas. Neither evolution nor creationism are the result
of any valid scientific method. Both are the result of cultist
superstitions that feed the pride and hubris of the cultists.

Reality has always existed. It did not have a time when it didn't
exist. It is part of something much bigger and more grand than man's
wildest imaginations. It did not come from a big bang out of chaos and
nothingness. It was not "intelligently designed." It has always existed
as an appendage to a greater invisible environment. The Creator reforms
and reshapes it according to His will. Our consciousness experiences it
in the stream of time, thus we try to conceive a beginning and end.

Any Christian who is not a sectarian cultist can read the Bible and see
the Beginning and End in Genesis and Revelation are not temporal phrases
regarding time but ordinal phrases defining the rank of a person.
Using such non-temporal titles of nobility to prop up temporal
creationist theology is heresy.

Atheists interpreting such phrases according to Christian superstition
shows a total departure from the scientific method and semantics. It is
impossible for an atheist to disprove the Bible because no atheist
understands the bible in the first place. Listening to an atheist
critique the Bible is like hearing a toddler arguing against the
meaning of Shakespeare. You are not qualified to criticize a thing that
completely evades your mental powers of comprehension.

In sum, nobody in the dichotomy of the debate knows what they are
talking about. And they don't care to be corrected by someone who does
know. Those who do know walk a long and lonely road surrounded by the
madness of zombie hatters.

The Bible teaches about this conundrum: The living cannot have
communion with the dead. Nor should the living seek to the dead for any
knowledge, for the dead know nothing at all. Only those comprehended in
the true faith of Jesus are alive. The rest are dead and cannot define
what is life or what is living. They know nothing at all.

--
NightBulb.net | https://blog.nightbulb.net | Flip the night switch.
gwene.org NNTP | https://gwene.org | news://gwene.net.nightbulb
Autoresponder | auto@nightbulb.net (all contact options)

On 12/30/2023 10:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really
>>> counts.
>>>
>>
>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
>> religious beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that
>> the ID perps never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour
>> only supports the science denial.
> >
> If intellignet design is the answer, then trying to find alternative
> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
> ancestor.

The real issue is that the god-did-it explanations have never been found
to be the answer in the entire history of mankind. It has had a 100%
failure rate. If you do not believe that, just try to find any
god-did-it explanations that have been verified. Zero should tell you
something. There is absolutely no reason to stop looking for another
alternative when your alternative has a zero success rate. You just
have to take the example of the Bible claiming that the designer opens
up the firmament in order to let the rain fall. What is really the
case? We have figured out the water cycle, and determined that a solid
firmament above us never existed. Where do babies come from? Who makes
the seasons change? Did the designer create a geocentric universe just
a few thousand years ago? It is just a fact that there has been a 100%
failure rate for god-did-it explanations. There have been zero successes.

100% failure is 100%. There have been no successes, ever. Not only
that but just like we will have to do for the god-did-it OOL claim we
have never been able to test the claims directly, but have to do the
hard work to figure out what was really happening.

That is the difference between religious faith and science. If you
can't accept that reality you need to reconsider your position and your
religious beliefs. It is called faith for a reason.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>> the science denial.
>>>>
>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>
>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>> science.
> >
>Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>science
>
Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
>
>, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>
Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
science.
>
> In view, of
>the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
>
Again with this unsupported assertion? The "better
explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
which show several ways life may have started. You've had
some of these explained to you over the past several months;
the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
exist.
>
> Indeed creation
>(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
>alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>exercise in futility.
>>>
Sort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
>
>>> , then trying to find alternative
>>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>>> ancestor.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really
>>>>> counts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
>>>> religious
>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>> the science denial.
>>>>
>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>
>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>> science.
> >
> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
> science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view, of
> the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed creation
> (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching  for
> alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
> exercise in futility.

That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer. How
did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.

The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that
answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 06:50:11 -0600, SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500
>Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of
>> modern science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In
>> view, of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
>> creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
>> for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be
>> an exercise in futility.
>
><snip>
>
>Creationist theology was _not_ the original explanation for the
>creatures existing in this world. Creationism had several primitive
>forms among the peoples of the ancient world. The ancient Israelites
>who wrote the Bible books did not believe in Christian creationism and
>all of those prophets would view modern creationist ideology as
>blasphemy. Genesis is about the ordering of God's invisible creation,
>which was to be done before any final ordering of the visible creation
>at the day of the resurrection:
>
>(Colossians 1:15)
>Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
>
>Jesus is the FIRST born of EVERY creature. This destroys creationism.
>It tells us when the creation began: 3BC. No creatures were born or
>created before Jesus. He is the FIRST of the living creatures. So you
>can see, the Christian definition of, 'living creature' is wrong.
>
>And Paul even wrote about this subject of heretical creationism:
>
>"For the INVISIBLE things of him from the creation of the world are
>clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
>eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because
>that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
>thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
>heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
>fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
>like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
>creeping things."
>
>The creationsistas are looking at visible things with a darkened mind.
>Paul says to look to the INVISIBLE things in the creation to understand
>the living things that God is making.
>
>The problem with intelligent design is that like the evolution
>superstition both suppose to define life. The dead cannot define what
>is alive. Just because something moves or speaks does not prove that it
>is alive. That which is born from above is alive. That which is not
>born from above is dead, being lost in lawlessness.
>
>That which is decaying is not alive. It is already dead.
>
>The 'debate' will go nowhere because both contestants are already dead.
>
>Evolution vs creationism is a false dichotomy. It presupposes there are
>only two options, each of which serves an agenda. Both ideologies are
>the result of men with agendas cooking up a religion to bolster their
>pre-conceived agendas. Neither evolution nor creationism are the result
>of any valid scientific method. Both are the result of cultist
>superstitions that feed the pride and hubris of the cultists.
>
>Reality has always existed. It did not have a time when it didn't
>exist. It is part of something much bigger and more grand than man's
>wildest imaginations. It did not come from a big bang out of chaos and
>nothingness. It was not "intelligently designed." It has always existed
>as an appendage to a greater invisible environment. The Creator reforms
>and reshapes it according to His will. Our consciousness experiences it
>in the stream of time, thus we try to conceive a beginning and end.
>
>Any Christian who is not a sectarian cultist can read the Bible and see
>the Beginning and End in Genesis and Revelation are not temporal phrases
>regarding time but ordinal phrases defining the rank of a person.
>Using such non-temporal titles of nobility to prop up temporal
>creationist theology is heresy.
>
>Atheists interpreting such phrases according to Christian superstition
>shows a total departure from the scientific method and semantics. It is
>impossible for an atheist to disprove the Bible because no atheist
>understands the bible in the first place. Listening to an atheist
>critique the Bible is like hearing a toddler arguing against the
>meaning of Shakespeare. You are not qualified to criticize a thing that
>completely evades your mental powers of comprehension.
>
>In sum, nobody in the dichotomy of the debate knows what they are
>talking about. And they don't care to be corrected by someone who does
>know. Those who do know walk a long and lonely road surrounded by the
>madness of zombie hatters.
>
>The Bible teaches about this conundrum: The living cannot have
>communion with the dead. Nor should the living seek to the dead for any
>knowledge, for the dead know nothing at all. Only those comprehended in
>the true faith of Jesus are alive. The rest are dead and cannot define
>what is life or what is living. They know nothing at all.

Ron Dean might be grateful, that he sounds the more coherent in
comparison.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>>> the science denial.
>>>>>
>>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>>
>>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>>> science.
>>>
>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>> science
>>
> Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
> is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
>
If it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of
cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
lucked out. These universes are witnessed, unknown and outside
conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
virtually the same as a religious view.
>>
>> , it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>>
> Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
> essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
> by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
> science.
>
Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is
objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind. Life
is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
_if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
to recognize, envision and
determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct
mutations.
All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
found or observed: and no new phylum since.
I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
_AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this
undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
>>
>> In view, of
>> the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
>>
> Again with this unsupported assertion? The "better
> explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
> combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
> which show several ways life may have started. You've had
> some of these explained to you over the past several months;
> the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
> exist.
>>
>> Indeed creation
>> (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
>> alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>> exercise in futility.
>>>>
> Sort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
> hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
> scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
>>
>>>> , then trying to find alternative
>>>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>>>> ancestor.

On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 11:02:25 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> >> <rondean...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> RonO wrote:
> >>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really
> >>>>> counts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
> >>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
> >>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
> >>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
> >>>> religious
> >>>> beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
> >>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports
> >>>> the science denial.
> >>>>
> >>> If intellignet design is the answer
> >>>
> >> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
> >> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
> >> science.
> > >
> > Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
> > science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view, of
> > the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed creation
> > (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
> > alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
> > exercise in futility.
> That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer. How
> did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
> the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
> president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
> does blood circulate? God does it.

A totally irrelevant point:

William Harvey told John Aubry that after his work on the circulation of the
blood was published, his practice dwindled by three quarters. Few people
wanted a doctor who held such obviously crazy ideas.

As far as I know Harvey did not consider the possibility that god had
destroyed his practice. Remiss of him!

Aubry's "Brief Lives" is packed with anecdotes of that kind.

William Hyde

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 14:48:21 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>>>> the science denial.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>>>
>>>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>>>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>>> science
>>>
>> Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
>> is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
>>
>If it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
>learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of
>cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
>or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
>lucked out. These universes are witnessed, unknown and outside
>conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
>virtually the same as a religious view.
>>>
Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
>
>>> , it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>>>
>> Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
>> essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
>> by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
>> science.
>>
>Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is
>objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind.
>
No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* provides
absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
to be your strong suit.
>
> Life
>is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
>natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
>observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
>mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
>mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
>_if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
>objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
>that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
>The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
>observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
>There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
>natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
>There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
>to recognize, envision and
>determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
>to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
>five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct
>mutations.
>All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
>except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
>found or observed: and no new phylum since.
>I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
>where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
>of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
>of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
>this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
>exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
>they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
>is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
>_AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this
>undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
>>>
You make a lot of unsupported assertions and assumptions,
and as usual fail to provide evidence for any of them.
>
>>> In view, of
>>> the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
>>>
>> Again with this unsupported assertion? The "better
>> explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
>> combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
>> which show several ways life may have started. You've had
>> some of these explained to you over the past several months;
>> the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
>> exist.
>>>
<Crickets>
>
>>> Indeed creation
>>> (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
>>> alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>>> exercise in futility.
>>>>>
>> Sort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
>> hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
>> scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
>>>
What, no rationalization to "refute" this? Imagine my
(non)surprise...
>
>>>>> , then trying to find alternative
>>>>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>>>>> ancestor.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really
>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
>>>>> religious
>>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only
>>>>> supports
>>>>> the science denial.
>>>>>
>>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>>
>>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>>> science.
>>  >
>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>> science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view,
>> of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
>> creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
>> for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>> exercise in futility.
>
> That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer.  How
> did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
> the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
> president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
Meaningless! The way you responded is not predicated on anything I
believe or wrote. The question is: Why: when I'm challenged, it almost
always, somehow comes down to, "my religion or my religious views", when
I never in any way bring the subject up. At no time, have I appealed
to, or used theology as reference in support of anything I've written
does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.
>
This in _no_ way addresses anything I've written. So, why does it so
often come down to my religion? I strongly suspect it's intended as a
"put down" and a self-serving defense.
I sometimes use the term God, but who or what is God. Is it the God of
the Bible, the Koran
on of the Mormon Gods or none of the above. But anything that can
bring-forth the universe
from nothing is entitled to be called God. If this is a goddamn religion
- so fu*king be it!
>
> The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
> worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that
> answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 14:48:21 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>>>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>>>>> the science denial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>>>>
>>>>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>>>>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>>>> science
>>>>
>>> Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
>>> is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
>>>
>> If it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
>> learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of
>> cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
>> or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
>> lucked out. These universes are (not) witnessed, unknown and outside
>> conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
>> virtually the same as a religious view.
>>>>
> Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
> are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
> reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
>
Science is restricted to naturalism!
>>
>>>> , it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>>>>
>>> Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
>>> essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
>>> by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
>>> science.
>>>
>> Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is
>> objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind.
>>
> No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* provides
> absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
> to be your strong suit.
>
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!

>>
>> Life
>> is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
>> natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
>> observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
>> mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
>> mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
>> _if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
>> objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
>> that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
>> The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
>> observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
>> There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
>> natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
>> There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
>> to recognize, envision and
>> determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
>> to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
>> five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct
>> mutations.
>> All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
>> except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
>> found or observed: and no new phylum since.
>> I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
>> where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
>> of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
>> of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
>> this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
>> exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
>> they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
>> is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
>> _AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this
>> undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
>>>>
> You make a lot of unsupported assertions and assumptions,
> and as usual fail to provide evidence for any of them.
>>
>>>> In view, of
>>>> the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
>>>>
>>> Again with this unsupported assertion? The "better
>>> explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
>>> combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
>>> which show several ways life may have started. You've had
>>> some of these explained to you over the past several months;
>>> the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
>>> exist.
>>>>
> <Crickets>
>>
>>>> Indeed creation
>>>> (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
>>>> alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>>>> exercise in futility.
>>>>>>
>>> Sort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
>>> hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
>>> scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
>>>>
> What, no rationalization to "refute" this? Imagine my
> (non)surprise...
>>
>>>>>> , then trying to find alternative
>>>>>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>>>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>>>>>> ancestor.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
>Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!

There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
created life, either. Your pseudoskepticism is your fatal flaw.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 9:37:26 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> RonO wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>> Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really
> >>>>>> counts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
> >>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
> >>>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
> >>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
> >>>>> religious
> >>>>> beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
> >>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only
> >>>>> supports
> >>>>> the science denial.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If intellignet design is the answer
> >>>>
> >>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
> >>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
> >>> science.
> >> >
> >> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
> >> science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view,
> >> of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
> >> creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
> >> for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
> >> exercise in futility.
> >
> > That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer. How
> > did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
> > the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
> > president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
> Meaningless! The way you responded is not predicated on anything I
> believe or wrote. The question is: Why: when I'm challenged, it almost
> always, somehow comes down to, "my religion or my religious views", when
> I never in any way bring the subject up. At no time, have I appealed
> to, or used theology as reference in support of anything I've written
> does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.
> >
> This in _no_ way addresses anything I've written. So, why does it so
> often come down to my religion? I strongly suspect it's intended as a
> "put down" and a self-serving defense.
> I sometimes use the term God, but who or what is God. Is it the God of
> the Bible, the Koran
> on of the Mormon Gods or none of the above. But anything that can
> bring-forth the universe
> from nothing is entitled to be called God. If this is a goddamn religion
> - so fu*king be it!

You get upset when people suggest that your rejection of evolution is a result of your religious commitment. Yet you have no trouble frequently suggesting that people accept evolution because of a prior commitment to naturalism. Once you start attacking people's motivation for their arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, you've prevented any further interesting discussion.

It is also the case that you've presented no new arguments in this thread that you have not posted in almost the same words many times before. If they failed to change any minds before, it's unlikely that repeating them unmodified will change any minds in the future. Maybe you could try typing them in ALL CAPS. That might work.
> >
> > The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
> > worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that
> > answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:37:26 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> RonO wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>> Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really
> >>>>>> counts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
> >>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
> >>>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
> >>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
> >>>>> religious
> >>>>> beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
> >>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only
> >>>>> supports
> >>>>> the science denial.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If intellignet design is the answer
> >>>>
> >>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
> >>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
> >>> science.
> >> >
> >> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
> >> science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view,
> >> of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
> >> creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
> >> for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
> >> exercise in futility.
> >
> > That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer. How
> > did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
> > the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
> > president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
> >
> Meaningless! The way you responded is not predicated on anything I
> believe or wrote. The question is: Why: when I'm challenged, it almost
> always, somehow comes down to, "my religion or my religious views", when
> I never in any way bring the subject up. At no time, have I appealed
> to, or used theology as reference in support of anything I've written
>
Because you ask for it. Fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true".
So if you use "fact" about something that is considered true only by
religion, then people tell you that your position is religion. There is nothing
wrong in being religious, only that it is pointless to try to prove religion with
reason.

> > does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.
> >
> This in _no_ way addresses anything I've written. So, why does it so
> often come down to my religion? I strongly suspect it's intended as a
> "put down" and a self-serving defense.
>
No. It is because you try to "conclude" knowledge from ignorance. That
does not make sense. Stop it. Your opinion is religious, it is not based
on ignorance but on belief.
> I sometimes use the term God, but who or what is God. Is it the God of
> the Bible, the Koran
> on of the Mormon Gods or none of the above. But anything that can
> bring-forth the universe
> from nothing is entitled to be called God. If this is a goddamn religion
> - so fu*king be it!
>
Why you need to be vulgar about it? We do not know origins of life or
universe. That is hard to know as we are aware only about one universe
and one kind of life. These apparently were here already billions of
years ago. Only our ignorance is what is fact here. Lack of knowledge is
hard to worship? Then stop accusing others and stop attempting that.

> >
> > The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
> > worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that
> > answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 14:48:21 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Creationists can do good work.  Field of expertise is what really counts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
>>>>>>>> scam has been all these years.  He is the one that has claimed that he
>>>>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science.  What should that tell any
>>>>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
>>>>>>>> beliefs.  Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
>>>>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have.  Tour only supports
>>>>>>>> the science denial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If intellignet design is the answer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
>>>>>> mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
>>>>> science
>>>>>
>>>> Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
>>>> is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
>>>>
>>> If it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
>>> learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of
>>> cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
>>> or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
>>> lucked out. These universes are (not) witnessed, unknown and outside
>>> conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
>>> virtually the same as a religious view.
>>>>>
>> Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
>> are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
>> reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
> >
>Science is restricted to naturalism!
>>>
Well, yes, if by "naturalism" you mean everything which can
be detected; IOW, all of physical reality. Not much of a
restriction, IMHO.
>
>>>>> , it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
>>>> essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
>>>> by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>> Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is
>>> objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind.
>>>
>> No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* provides
>> absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
>> to be your strong suit.
> >
>Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
>Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
>
Oh, I got your "explanation"; I simply reject it, for the
reason I gave. Again, the existence of *anything* says
nothing about how it came to exist. Your assumption is that
nothing can happen which isn't under intelligent guidance,
an assumption which is incorrect by observation.
>>>
>>> Life
>>> is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
>>> natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
>>> observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
>>> mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
>>> mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
>>> _if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
>>> objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
>>> that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
>>> The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
>>> observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
>>> There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
>>> natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
>>> There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
>>> to recognize, envision and
>>> determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
>>> to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
>>> five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct
>>> mutations.
>>> All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
>>> except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
>>> found or observed: and no new phylum since.
>>> I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
>>> where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
>>> of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
>>> of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
>>> this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
>>> exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
>>> they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
>>> is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
>>> _AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this
>>> undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
>>>>>
>> You make a lot of unsupported assertions and assumptions,
>> and as usual fail to provide evidence for any of them.
>>>
Still no evidence...
>
>>>>> In view, of
>>>>> the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
>>>>>
>>>> Again with this unsupported assertion? The "better
>>>> explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
>>>> combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
>>>> which show several ways life may have started. You've had
>>>> some of these explained to you over the past several months;
>>>> the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>> <Crickets>
>
Idem.
>>>
>>>>> Indeed creation
>>>>> (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
>>>>> alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
>>>>> exercise in futility.
>>>>>>>
>>>> Sort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
>>>> hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
>>>> scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
>>>>>
>> What, no rationalization to "refute" this? Imagine my
>> (non)surprise...
>>>
>>>>>>> , then trying to find alternative
>>>>>>> explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
>>>>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
>>>>>>> ancestor.
--

On 1/1/24 7:14 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>> Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
>> are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
>> reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
> >
> Science is restricted to naturalism!

Science is restricted to science. Show us how science can be
productively done with supernaturalism, and scientists will be all in.
Note, however, that "show us" does not mean "claim".

>>>>> , it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
>>>> essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
>>>> by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>> Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is
>>> objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind.
>>>
>> No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* provides
>> absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
>> to be your strong suit.
> >
> Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
> proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. Otherwise,
> there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring about life
> there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To think
> random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life into
> existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of  _faith_!

Apparently, logic goes over your head. There *are* snowflakes, proving
that something (a God) brought snowflakes about. Otherwise, there would
be no snowflakes. Nature did not and could not bring about snowflakes;
there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. (Nobody has
ever ruled out supernatural processes in clouds.) To think random,
aimless, blind, and mindless natural processes brought snowflakes into
existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of FAITH!

The same argument could be made for fire, asteroids, stalactites, and a
million other natural phenomena. None of which, despite your "logic",
prove God.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
><rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
>>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
>>Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
>>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
>>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
>>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
>
>
>There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
>created life, either.

You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
or Mind that created life".

That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.

If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 5:42:28 AM UTC-5, IDentity wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
> ><rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
> >>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
> >>Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
> >>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
> >>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
> >>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
> >
> >
> >There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
> >created life, either.
> You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
> or Mind that created life".
>
> That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
>
> If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
> that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?

Two possibilities (1) You are right and they are wrong (2) you are wrong and they are right. What test can you use so that after the test is done, you both agree which of the possibilities was correct?

On 2024-01-03 10:37:58 +0000, IDentity said:

> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
>>> proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
>>> Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
>>> about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
>>> think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
>>> into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
>>
>>
>> There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
>> created life, either.
>
> You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
> or Mind that created life".
>
> That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.

So why don't you quote some evidence?
>
> If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
> that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?

--
Athel cb

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentity <identity@invalid.org>
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
>><rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
>>>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
>>>Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
>>>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
>>>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
>>>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
>>
>>
>>There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
>>created life, either.
>
>You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
>or Mind that created life".
>
>That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
>
>If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
>that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?

My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and show that
his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a
pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical evidence
for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to provide
any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis.
Meanwhile, I and others repeatedly respond to his demands and put
before him documented observable and empirical evidence, which he then
conveniently ignores/forgets. His post above is MOTS, rinse and
repeat.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge