https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design

Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.

This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.

I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
have to deny.

Ron Okimoto

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:

>https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>
>Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
>like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>it gets interpreted.
>
Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
in this article...

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

....as well as those shown in this one...

https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930

....will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>
>This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>exposed in Kitzmiller.
>
>I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
>running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
>like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
>ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It
>looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
>creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
>want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
>have to deny.
>
>Ron Okimoto
--

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 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>> exposed in Kitzmiller.

If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
proponentsists that's where they came from.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:27 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com>:

>On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
Actually, there's nothing here I wrote.
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>
>If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
>proponentsists that's where they came from.
--

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 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:27 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>
>If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
>proponentsists that's where they came from.

It's been decades since the Kitzmiller trial, but anybody who followed
it knows full well the significance of that phrase as iconic evidence
of the incestuous relationship between ID and Creationism:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI>

"it's the missing link"

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

On 3/22/2024 10:54 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:27 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>
>> If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
>> proponentsists that's where they came from.
>
>
> It's been decades since the Kitzmiller trial, but anybody who followed
> it knows full well the significance of that phrase as iconic evidence
> of the incestuous relationship between ID and Creationism:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI>
>
> "it's the missing link"

It just makes two gaps, where there was only one before, for the ID perps.

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

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>
>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>> they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>> it gets interpreted.
>>
> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
> in this article...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>
> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>
> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>
> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>
>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>
>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It
>> looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
>> have to deny.
>
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.

The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from
mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto

On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>
>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is sort of
>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>
>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>> in this article...
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>
>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>
>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>
>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>
>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public school
>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>
>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that the
>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down.  It
>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
>>> have to deny.
> >
> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
> geologically speaking.
>
> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from
> mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>
You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's been
a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented no
such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed, so it must be"
isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't
bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.

erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>
>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>> sort of
>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>
>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>> in this article...
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>
>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>
>>>
>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>
>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>> ignorant
>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public school
>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>
>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that the
>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>> down.  It
>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do
>>>> not
>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>> they
>>>> have to deny.
>>  >
>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>> geologically speaking.
>>
>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's been
> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
> that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
> Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
> regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
> from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
>
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

Ron Dean wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>> governor.
>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
>>>>> what
>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>> in this article...
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>
>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>
>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>
>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>> religious
>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher
>>>>> be at
>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>> public
>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>> school
>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>> used to
>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
>>>>> the
>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that
>>>>> the
>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>> someone
>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>> down.  It
>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
>>>>> do not
>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>>> they
>>>>> have to deny.
>>>  >
>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>> geologically speaking.
>>>
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
>> deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented
>> no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
>> preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of
>> accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed,
>> so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance
>> itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
>> doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
> >
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have you researched this topic?
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
>

Ron Dean wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>
>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>>> they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>
>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>> in this article...
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>
>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>
>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>
>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>
>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>
>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It
>>> looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
>>> have to deny.
> >
> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
> they can claim points to the identity of the designer.

Like horse and carriage, love and marriage, you can't have one
without the other. Without any attributes of the designer
saying it was "designed" is the same as saying it was "flubbied".
It may sound like an explanation, but isn't one. But you
sell yourself short! By your own analysis from earlier posts,
the evidence for design that you gave allows us to say quite
a bit about the designer. The teacher could e.g. say
that the evidence that Ron Dean has unearthed, we can rule out
categorically the deity of the Abrahamic religions

But
> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
> geologically speaking.

That's not evidence for design, that's a somewhat trivial recognition
that the further we go back in history, the less likely it is becomes
that remains were preserved, and at one point data will simply run out

> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?

From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
references to quite a number of them.

If the present is
> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from
> mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>

On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>> governor.
>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
>>>>> what
>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>> in this article...
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>
>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>
>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>
>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>
>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>> religious
>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher
>>>>> be at
>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>> public
>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>> school
>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>> used to
>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
>>>>> the
>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that
>>>>> the
>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>> someone
>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>> down.  It
>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
>>>>> do not
>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>>> they
>>>>> have to deny.
>>>  >
>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>> geologically speaking.
>>>
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
>> deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented
>> no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
>> preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of
>> accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed,
>> so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance
>> itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
>> doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
> >
> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
> information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
>>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
>
Yes, but there are many here much more knowledgeable than I. Have you?

On 30/03/2024 19:38, Ron Dean wrote:
> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
> information contained in DNA. Have you researched this topic?

In general, have you studied the processes that collectively comprise
evolution?

In specific, have you read the literature of the genomes of
choanoflagellates? (Are you knowledgeable enough about evolution to
understand what that is relevant to your claims about the early metazoan
adaptive radiation?)

--
alias Ernest Major

Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>
>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>> sort of
>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>
>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>> in this article...
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>
>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>
>>>
>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>
>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>> ignorant
>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public school
>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>
>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that the
>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>> down.  It
>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do
>>>> not
>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>> they
>>>> have to deny.
>>  >
>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>> intelligent design.  However, they can not point to any evidence that
>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer.
>
> Like horse and carriage, love and marriage, you can't have one
> without the other. Without any attributes of the designer
> saying it was "designed" is the same as saying it was "flubbied". It may
> sound like an explanation, but isn't one. But you sell yourself short!
> By your own analysis from earlier posts, the evidence for design that
> you gave allows us to say quite
> a bit about the designer. The teacher could e.g. say that the evidence
> that Ron Dean has unearthed, we can rule out
> categorically the deity of the Abrahamic religions
>
> But
>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>> geologically speaking.
>
> That's not evidence for design, that's a somewhat trivial recognition
> that the further we go back in history, the less likely it is becomes
> that remains were preserved, and at one point data will simply run out
>
>
>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
>
> From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
> references to quite a number of them.
>
There is no direct linage back to any common ancestor for these Cambrian
complex animals. Since they were found in the fossil record, over a
period of (about 10KK years), there is no reason the direct links back
to some ancestors is not found. Just another example of evidence that's
not observed. Of course. there are excuses.

The question still remains as to the origin of the DNA itself, as well
as the abrupt origin of the information required for the formation of
this myriad of complex Cambrian animals. The myriad of complex animals
required a myriad of informational programs for these animals
>
> If the present is
>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>
>

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the governor.
>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>> in this article...
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>
>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>
>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>
>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher be at
>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public school
>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that the
>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>> down.  It
>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do
>>>>> not
>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>>> they
>>>>> have to deny.
>>>  >
>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>> geologically speaking.
>>>
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's been
>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
>> that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
>> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
>> Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
>> regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
>> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
>> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
>> from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
> >
>Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
>source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
>>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past. You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,
you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
evidence of design.

And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
negative evidence against unguided evolution.

Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your
poison.

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

On 31/03/2024 04:09, Ron Dean wrote:
> The myriad of complex animals required a myriad of informational
> programs for these animals

Have you abandoned your earlier claim of a single "master control
program" (scare quotes, not a direct quote) for all animals? (Which you
asserted for evidence for design?)

BTW, myriad is either literally 10,000 or a large (metaphorically
uncountable number). The intelligent design, as opposed to an explicitly
creationist, claim is that scores or hundreds of various groups of
animals originated independently in the Cambrian.

--
alias Ernest Major

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 31/03/2024 04:09, Ron Dean wrote:
>> The myriad of complex animals required a myriad of informational
>> programs for these animals
>
> Have you abandoned your earlier claim of a single "master control
> program" (scare quotes, not a direct quote) for all animals? (Which you
> asserted for evidence for design?)
>
The master control genes, as I understood, controlled or switched on the
downstream specific genes that expressed various body plans.
>
> BTW, myriad is either literally 10,000 or a large (metaphorically
> uncountable number).
>
Who knows how many animals or species abruptly appeared during the
Cambrian. There could have been thousands of trilobites species alone.

The intelligent design, as opposed to an explicitly
> creationist, claim is that scores or hundreds of various groups of
> animals originated independently in the Cambrian.
>
I've never given much thought as to how many of the various groups
appeared independently during the Cambrian. However, I recall reading
that almost all modern phyla appeared during this period a scale 0f
10-25 kk years. .

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

On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>> governor.
>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
>>>>> what
>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see how
>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>> in this article...
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>
>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>
>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>
>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>
>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>> religious
>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher
>>>>> be at
>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>> public
>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>> school
>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>> used to
>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
>>>>> the
>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It looks
>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is that
>>>>> the
>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>> someone
>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>> down.  It
>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
>>>>> do not
>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
>>>>> they
>>>>> have to deny.
>>>  >
>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>> geologically speaking.
>>>
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
>> deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented
>> no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
>> preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of
>> accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed,
>> so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance
>> itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
>> doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
> >
> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
> information contained in DNA.

The source of that information is the entropy difference between the Sun
and empty space.

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

On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
>>>>>> intelligent
>>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>>> governor.
>>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
>>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
>>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will see
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>>> in this article...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>>
>>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>>
>>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
>>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>>> religious
>>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher
>>>>>> be at
>>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
>>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach
>>>>>> ID in
>>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
>>>>>> the ID
>>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>>> school
>>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>>> used to
>>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
>>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
>>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
>>>>>> hapless
>>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It
>>>>>> looks
>>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>>> down.  It
>>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
>>>>>> switch
>>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
>>>>>> do not
>>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
>>>>>> what they
>>>>>> have to deny.
>>>>  >
>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>>> geologically speaking.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information
>>>> to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
>>>> present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
>>>> comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
>>> deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has
>>> presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor
>>> the preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of
>>> accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed,
>>> so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.
>>> Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint;
>>> information doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
>>  >
>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
>> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>> information contained in DNA.
>
> The source of that information is the entropy difference between the Sun
> and empty space.
>

More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current
information that exists in extant lifeforms. Photosynthesis did not
exist in the first lifeforms. Chemotrophs existed first, and it was the
entropy difference between the earth and empty space that maintained the
replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at that time.

Ron Okimoto

On 31/03/2024 20:50, RonO wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
>>>>>>> intelligent
>>>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>>>> governor.
>>>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
>>>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
>>>>>>> about what
>>>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will
>>>>>>> see how
>>>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>>>> in this article...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught
>>>>>>> scam.
>>>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a teacher
>>>>>>> be at
>>>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
>>>>>>> down on
>>>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach
>>>>>>> ID in
>>>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
>>>>>>> the ID
>>>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>>>> used to
>>>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
>>>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute
>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
>>>>>>> hapless
>>>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left after
>>>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It
>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>>>> down.  It
>>>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are still
>>>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
>>>>>>> gotten any
>>>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an
>>>>>>> obfuscation and
>>>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
>>>>>>> what they
>>>>>>> have to deny.
>>>>>  >
>>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence
>>>>> that they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
>>>>> Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
>>>>> abruptly, geologically speaking.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information
>>>>> to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
>>>>> present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
>>>>> comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>>>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
>>>> deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has
>>>> presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
>>>> nor the preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record
>>>> of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks
>>>> designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
>>>> ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
>>>> remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN to
>>>> the mind.
>>>  >
>>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
>>> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>>> information contained in DNA.
>>
>> The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
>> Sun and empty space.
>>
>
> More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
> space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current
> information that exists in extant lifeforms.  Photosynthesis did not
> exist in the first lifeforms.  Chemotrophs existed first, and it was the
> entropy difference between the earth and empty space that maintained the
> replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at that time.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

Note that the entropy difference between the earth and empty space is in
great part maintained by the entropy difference between the sun and the
earth.

--
alias Ernest Major

On 3/31/2024 3:58 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 31/03/2024 20:50, RonO wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
>>>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
>>>>>>>> intelligent
>>>>>>>> design in the public schools.  The bill didn't make it to the
>>>>>>>> governor.
>>>>>>>> This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation.  It is
>>>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>>>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>> creationism.  The Supreme court ruled that even though the
>>>>>>>> dishonest
>>>>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
>>>>>>>> about what
>>>>>>>> they wanted to teach.  If the governor signs this bill we will
>>>>>>>> see how
>>>>>>>> it gets interpreted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
>>>>>>> in this article...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...as well as those shown in this one...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
>>>>>>> not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
>>>>>>> after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught
>>>>>>>> scam.
>>>>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
>>>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
>>>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
>>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>>> beliefs in the science class.  Really, how honest could a
>>>>>>>> teacher be at
>>>>>>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
>>>>>>>> down on
>>>>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>> schools.  No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach
>>>>>>>> ID in
>>>>>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
>>>>>>>> the ID
>>>>>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute.  There has never been a public
>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
>>>>>>>> used to
>>>>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to
>>>>>>>> ID was
>>>>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute
>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
>>>>>>>> hapless
>>>>>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools.  She left
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> running  the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017.  It
>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed.  My guess is
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
>>>>>>>> down.  It
>>>>>>>> looks like they were wrong.  As crazy as it may seem there are
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
>>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
>>>>>>>> gotten any
>>>>>>>> ID science to teach.  All anyone has ever gotten is an
>>>>>>>> obfuscation and
>>>>>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because
>>>>>>>> they do not
>>>>>>>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
>>>>>>>> what they
>>>>>>>> have to deny.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim
>>>>>> supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any
>>>>>> evidence that they can claim points to the identity of the
>>>>>> designer. But
>>>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
>>>>>> Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
>>>>>> abruptly, geologically speaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information
>>>>>> to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
>>>>>> present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
>>>>>> comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's
>>>>> been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a
>>>>> great deal that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has
>>>>> presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
>>>>> nor the preceding Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record
>>>>> of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks
>>>>> designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
>>>>> ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
>>>>> remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind.  It goes IN
>>>>> to the mind.
>>>>  >
>>>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer
>>>> the source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>>>> information contained in DNA.
>>>
>>> The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
>>> Sun and empty space.
>>>
>>
>> More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
>> space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current
>> information that exists in extant lifeforms.  Photosynthesis did not
>> exist in the first lifeforms.  Chemotrophs existed first, and it was
>> the entropy difference between the earth and empty space that
>> maintained the replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at
>> that time.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
> Note that the entropy difference between the earth and empty space is in
> great part maintained by the entropy difference between the sun and the
> earth.
>

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:09:08 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Burkhard wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
>>
>> From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
>> references to quite a number of them.
> >
>There is no direct linage back to any common ancestor for these Cambrian
>complex animals. Since they were found in the fossil record, over a
>period of (about 10KK years), there is no reason the direct links back
>to some ancestors is not found. Just another example of evidence that's
>not observed. Of course. there are excuses.
>
>The question still remains as to the origin of the DNA itself, as well
>as the abrupt origin of the information required for the formation of
>this myriad of complex Cambrian animals. The myriad of complex animals
>required a myriad of informational programs for these animals

How do you define "information" and what, in your view, prevents it
from evolving?

On 3/30/24 8:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
>>
>>  From earlier, simpler organisms. You have been given in the past
>> references to quite a number of them.
> >
> There is no direct linage back to any common ancestor for these Cambrian
> complex animals. Since they were found in the fossil record, over a
> period of (about 10KK years), there is no reason the direct links back
> to some ancestors is not found. Just another example of evidence that's
> not observed. Of course. there are excuses.

That "no excuses" line implies that it is all your designer's fault for
not maintaining birth certificate records for 500 million years. For shame!

(Of course, if there was no designer, then there is no reason to expect
definitive lineage records going back that far.)

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

jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>>> geologically speaking.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's been
>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
>>> that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
>>> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
>>> Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
>>> regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
>>> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
>>> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
>>> from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
>>>
>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
>> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>> information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
>>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
>
>
> Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to
> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
> past.
>
Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known
exceptions.
>
You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,
> you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
> things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
> evidence of design.
>
Life itself is evidence of design. Why is there life? What impelled dead
matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument
was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily
gaps.
>
> And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
> baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
> processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
> making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
> negative evidence against unguided evolution.
>
> Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
> rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
> once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your
> poison.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:48:04 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
>>>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
>>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
>>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
>>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
>>>>> geologically speaking.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
>>>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
>>>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
>>>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's been
>>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
>>>> that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
>>>> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
>>>> Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
>>>> regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
>>>> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
>>>> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
>>>> from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
>>>>
>>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
>>> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
>>> information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
>>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
>>
>>
>> Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to
>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
>> past.
>>
>Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
>research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known
>exceptions.

DNA information comes from none of the sources you identified above,
therefore it doesn't exist. QED.

> You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,
>> you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
>> things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
>> evidence of design.
> >
>Life itself is evidence of design.

Your comment above is not empirical evidence, but is instead a
baseless conclusion. Try to recognize the difference.

>Why is there life? What impelled dead
>matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument
>was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
>Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily
>gaps.

Before you again ask mindless "why" questions, try to identify the
difference between "dead" and "live".

>> And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
>> baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
>> processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
>> making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
>> negative evidence against unguided evolution.
>>
>> Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
>> rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
>> once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your
>> poison.

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