| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2004 10:29:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 04:41:31 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
[...]
the first lifeform?
For the first life form to have been designed by an
intelligent designer, I see three main possibilities:
- No life form has designed itself, so the the intelligent
designer is/was not alive.
- The intelligent designer designed itself, possibly in some
way involving time travel.
- None of the above.
All three possibilities strike me as being terribly interesting and
exciting, perhaps even more so than evolution and natural abiogenesis.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I didn't realize that when the boss said "We work a half day here,"
he meant 8am to 8pm.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 01:12:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 03:02:44 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8vifl.170.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
Those _aliens'_ notes on making cells could not possibly be evidence
for the intelligent design of the _first_ lifeform.
Why not?
You didn't even attempt to answer my other two questions. I'll ask
the questions again:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
Atoms with "God made me" emblazoned on them?
biology?
Cells with "God made me" emblazoned on them?
the first lifeform?
Fossils of primitive self-replicating molecules with "God made me"
emblazoned on them?
After all, if I were looking at an alleged artifact, I would be looking for
some sign of actual intelligent workings, rather than just natural
weathering or other processes of a distinctly unintelligent nature.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
No David, I do not.
Have you read Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_?
Dawkins is of the opinion that biology strongly exhibits the
appearance of having been the product of intelligent design, and he
argues therein quite cogently for that opinion.
Yes I've read the Blind Watchmaker, which is where I'm sure you think you've
cribbed together your strawman which you call the Blind Watchmaker theory.
You'll note the word "appearance". What does that suggest to you about what
Dawkins is saying, David?
Biology exhibits all the appearances of being modified
by genetic change through multiple generations due to various pressures.
What are the names of 3 of these [AC]"various pressures"?
For each of the 3 [AC]"various pressures" you mentioned, what are 2 of
their more noteworthy observable effects?
Being that it is late at night, and I'm not too sure how much I want to
invest in conversations with you, I can think of two, competition for
resources and environmental pressures. In either case, coupled with the
genetic diversity in any population, some members are going to be more
likely than other members to deal with the pressures, and thus,
statistically, more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.
It certainly isn't directed, nor is it a guarantee that the best genes will
make it, though statistically that will be the case.
Are you attempting to deny a) that populations are under pressures both
external (environment) and internal (competition for resources, mates) and
b) that populations show genetic diversity?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 11:03:49 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8vifl.170.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
Those _aliens'_ notes on making cells could not possibly be evidence
for the intelligent design of the _first_ lifeform.
You didn't even attempt to answer my other two questions. I'll ask
the questions again:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown or disputed fact; support; indication; information in a law
case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively.
- physics? I'd take quasars that signalled in an obvious pattern, like signalling the first 100 prime numbers, then repeating the
pattern.
- biology? I'd accept optimized designs. Start with humans having a gene for making vitamin C that *isn't* broken. Or a throat
that *doesn't* make choking so easy. Leave those broken pieces in place for the other apes and that's be even more evidence.
- the first lifeform? Geological/fossil evidence that fully-functioning organisms (plants, fish and land animals) appeared
simultaneously at the same geological time.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
| User: "CHMC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 11:21:06 AM |
|
|
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:409114A2.B8512342@Company.com...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8vifl.170.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message
news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article
could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place
upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still
wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I
secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate
students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their
respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really
are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane.
You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the
strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening
to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from
individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that
the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence
for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science
can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for
god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with
detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
Those _aliens'_ notes on making cells could not possibly be evidence
for the intelligent design of the _first_ lifeform.
You didn't even attempt to answer my other two questions. I'll ask
the questions again:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown
or disputed fact; support; indication; information in a law
case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively.
- physics? I'd take quasars that signalled in an obvious pattern, like
signalling the first 100 prime numbers, then repeating the
pattern.
- biology? I'd accept optimized designs. Start with humans having a gene
for making vitamin C that *isn't* broken. Or a throat
that *doesn't* make choking so easy. Leave those broken pieces in place
for the other apes and that's be even more evidence.
- the first lifeform? Geological/fossil evidence that fully-functioning
organisms (plants, fish and land animals) appeared
simultaneously at the same geological time.
Or how about a creator that walked up to you and introduced himself. God is
supposed to be omnipotent, surely he can convince people of his existance.
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 10:32:47 PM |
|
|
"CHMC" <CHMC@CHMC.COM> wrote in message news:<c6ra96$9tc$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:409114A2.B8512342@Company.com...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8vifl.170.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message
news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article
could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place
upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still
wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I
secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate
students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their
respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really
are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane.
You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the
strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening
to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from
individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that
the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence
for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science
can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for
god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with
detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
Those _aliens'_ notes on making cells could not possibly be evidence
for the intelligent design of the _first_ lifeform.
You didn't even attempt to answer my other two questions. I'll ask
the questions again:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown
or disputed fact; support; indication; information in a law
case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively.
- physics? I'd take quasars that signalled in an obvious pattern, like
signalling the first 100 prime numbers, then repeating the
pattern.
- biology? I'd accept optimized designs. Start with humans having a gene
for making vitamin C that *isn't* broken. Or a throat
that *doesn't* make choking so easy. Leave those broken pieces in place
for the other apes and that's be even more evidence.
- the first lifeform? Geological/fossil evidence that fully-functioning
organisms (plants, fish and land animals) appeared
simultaneously at the same geological time.
Or how about a creator that walked up to you and introduced himself. God is
supposed to be omnipotent, surely he can convince people of his existance.
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not compellingly-persuaded
everyone of God's existence. If there is a God, surely that God would
take steps to persuade everyone of God's existence, even if it took a
personal visit from God. Those steps have not been taken. Therefore
God apparently does not exist.
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not made humans in a
fashion such that they wouldn't ever choke. Surely, if God made
humans, that God would have taken steps when designing to ensure that
humans didn't ever choke. Yet humans do choke. Therefore God
apparently did not design humans.
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
I'd like to see you try to convince me of your existence.
Creationists, please present some evidence of your designer(s)'s
existence. I do not see your postulated designer(s). All I can see
are immensely-complex phenotypes, which are generated by recipes of
nucleotides arranged into meaning-laden sequences. I don't think that
seeing immensely-complex phenotypes and meaning-laden genotypes is
strong evidence for an intelligence(s) that was/were responsible for
the appearance of those meaningful arrangements of nucleotides and the
appearance of those immensely-complex phenotypes. Please present some
evidence of your postulated intelligent designer(s)'s existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 01:47:29 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com...
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not compellingly-persuaded
everyone of God's existence. If there is a God, surely that God would
take steps to persuade everyone of God's existence, even if it took a
personal visit from God. Those steps have not been taken. Therefore
God apparently does not exist.
Interesting. In other posts you seem to be arguing for
ID, but here argue that God doesn't exist.
Apparently you believe there is an intelligent designer
other than God.
Who would the designer be? Space aliens?
<snip>
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
I'd like to see you try to convince me of your existence.
That statement proves that he has already succeeded.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 12:12:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:47:29 +0000 (UTC), "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com...
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not compellingly-persuaded
everyone of God's existence. If there is a God, surely that God would
take steps to persuade everyone of God's existence, even if it took a
personal visit from God. Those steps have not been taken. Therefore
God apparently does not exist.
Interesting. In other posts you seem to be arguing for
ID, but here argue that God doesn't exist.
Apparently you believe there is an intelligent designer
other than God.
Who would the designer be? Space aliens?
Maybe he is Raelian. . .
German
<snip>
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
I'd like to see you try to convince me of your existence.
That statement proves that he has already succeeded.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
01 May 2004 08:17:47 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<%Hmkc.8123$4D1.1272@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com...
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not compellingly-persuaded
everyone of God's existence. If there is a God, surely that God would
take steps to persuade everyone of God's existence, even if it took a
personal visit from God. Those steps have not been taken. Therefore
God apparently does not exist.
Interesting. In other posts you seem to be arguing for
ID, but here argue that God doesn't exist.
Apparently you believe there is an intelligent designer
other than God.
Who would the designer be? Space aliens?
It is conceivable that spacealiens were responsible for the
intelligent design of the first lifeform present on earth, and for the
events in which various sets of organisms were created through
alterations of genomes. However, if space aliens are advanced as a
possibility, we can then ask the question, How did these spacealiens
originate? The answer of "other spacealiens" cannot be extended back
indefinitely, because the universe in which we and those spacealiens
reside began to exist in the big bang.
Perhaps it would be simpler-- here's where a razor could come in-- to
postulate a not-material designer(s) that was/were responsible for all
of the following: the universe's beginning to exist in the Big Bang,
the appearance of the first lifeforms on earth, and the subsequent
creation events brought about by intelligently-designed alterations in
organisms' genomes.
<snip>
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
I'd like to see you try to convince me of your existence.
That statement proves that he has already succeeded.
This sounds like some sort of ontological argument for the existence
of an individual denoted by the letters "CHMC." I'm not impressed
with ontological arguments for God's existence, and I'm not impressed
with ontological arguments for CHMC's existence.
We all know that the strong appearance of intelligent design (whether
in biology, which contains massive genetic libraries of information
encoded by nucleotides, or in not-that-lengthy meaningful sequences of
letters and spaces in newsgroup posts) could merely be that-- a
strong, but false, appearance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
07 May 2004 10:41:21 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0405010522.26b72787@posting.google.com:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<%Hmkc.8123$4D1.1272@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com...
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not
compellingly-persuaded everyone of God's existence. If there is a
God, surely that God would take steps to persuade everyone of God's
existence, even if it took a personal visit from God. Those steps
have not been taken. Therefore God apparently does not exist.
Interesting. In other posts you seem to be arguing for
ID, but here argue that God doesn't exist.
Apparently you believe there is an intelligent designer
other than God.
Who would the designer be? Space aliens?
It is conceivable that spacealiens were responsible for the
intelligent design of the first lifeform present on earth, and for the
events in which various sets of organisms were created through
alterations of genomes. However, if space aliens are advanced as a
possibility, we can then ask the question, How did these spacealiens
originate? The answer of "other spacealiens" cannot be extended back
If you hadn't acknowledged that, I would have
brought it to your attention.
indefinitely, because the universe in which we and those spacealiens
reside began to exist in the big bang.
Perhaps it would be simpler-- here's where a razor could come in-- to
postulate a not-material designer(s) that was/were responsible for all
of the following: the universe's beginning to exist in the Big Bang,
the appearance of the first lifeforms on earth, and the subsequent
creation events brought about by intelligently-designed alterations in
organisms' genomes.
I think you have the blade in your razor backwards.
You posit an apparently simple explanation to
fill a gap in your understanding.
I think your explanation is more complicated and
unnecessarily more complicated than
other more likely explanations.
Just what is this "non-material designer(s)"?
Where did it come from? What are its properties?
How does it affect the material?
Where is it now? Does it have will? consciousness?
intelligence? What animal does it want me
to sacrifice for what sin?
<snip>
Heck, even I can convince people of my existance.
I'd like to see you try to convince me of your existence.
That statement proves that he has already succeeded.
This sounds like some sort of ontological argument for the existence
It doesn't look ontological to me.
You addressed a statement to that person.
That shows that you were sufficiently
convinced of his existance.
of an individual denoted by the letters "CHMC." I'm not impressed
with ontological arguments for God's existence, and I'm not impressed
with ontological arguments for CHMC's existence.
We all know that the strong appearance of intelligent design (whether
in biology, which contains massive genetic libraries of information
encoded by nucleotides, or in not-that-lengthy meaningful sequences of
letters and spaces in newsgroup posts) could merely be that-- a
strong, but false, appearance.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
01 May 2004 06:51:24 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0405010522.26b72787@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
<snip>
It is conceivable that spacealiens were responsible for the
intelligent design of the first lifeform present on earth, and for the
events in which various sets of organisms were created through
alterations of genomes. However, if space aliens are advanced as a
possibility, we can then ask the question, How did these spacealiens
originate? The answer of "other spacealiens" cannot be extended back
indefinitely, because the universe in which we and those spacealiens
reside began to exist in the big bang.
<snip>
Aliens from another space time continuium all the way down.
Humans from the future who time travel and seed the young earth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
02 May 2004 02:42:47 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
: Ron Baker, Pluralitas! <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<%Hmkc.8123$4D1.1272@twister.socal.rr.com>...
:> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
:> news:b1c67abe.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com...
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> > I cannot think of a reason for God to have not compellingly-persuaded
:> > everyone of God's existence. If there is a God, surely that God would
:> > take steps to persuade everyone of God's existence, even if it took a
:> > personal visit from God. Those steps have not been taken. Therefore
:> > God apparently does not exist.
:>
:> Interesting. In other posts you seem to be arguing for
:> ID, but here argue that God doesn't exist.
:> Apparently you believe there is an intelligent designer
:> other than God.
:> Who would the designer be? Space aliens?
:
: It is conceivable that spacealiens were responsible for the
: intelligent design of the first lifeform present on earth, and for the
: events in which various sets of organisms were created through
: alterations of genomes. However, if space aliens are advanced as a
: possibility, we can then ask the question, How did these spacealiens
: originate?
Yes, you can. And in that regard it has the EXACT SAME problem that
comes up when you claim it was done by a god. Adding an additional
step to an infinitely recursive situation doesn't get you anywhere.
As soon as you start from the premise that intelligence cannot
exist without prior intelligence existing to create it, you have
made up just such an infinitely recursive situation. Once you take
that premise as undeniable fact, then you're screwed out of EVER
coming up with a satisfactory explanation. The solution has to
involve breaking that premise at some point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 06:35:28 PM |
|
|
In article <O.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not made humans in a
fashion such that they wouldn't ever choke. Surely, if God made
humans, that God would have taken steps when designing to ensure that
humans didn't ever choke. Yet humans do choke. Therefore God
apparently did not design humans.
<Snip>
Consider the prostrate gland and how the urethra passes through it, and
how the prostrate gland grows during middle age blocking the urethra. Or
placing the birth canal in women _there_ of all places. Or giving us a
gene for producing vitamin C that doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
02 May 2004 02:54:53 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
: In article <O.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com>,
: (david ford) wrote:
:
: <snip>
:> I cannot think of a reason for God to have not made humans in a
:> fashion such that they wouldn't ever choke. Surely, if God made
:> humans, that God would have taken steps when designing to ensure that
:> humans didn't ever choke. Yet humans do choke. Therefore God
:> apparently did not design humans.
:
: <Snip>
:
: Consider the prostrate gland and how the urethra passes through it, and
: how the prostrate gland grows during middle age blocking the urethra. Or
: placing the birth canal in women _there_ of all places. Or giving us a
: gene for producing vitamin C that doesn't work.
Or wiring up our retina backward, so the nerves are INSIDE the eyeball,
instead of attaching to the backside of the retina. With the nerves
on the inside (an incredibly stupid choice if it was designed on
purpose that way), there's no way for the signal to reach the brain
without poking a hole in the eyeball somewhere. That hole is in the
retina, and is the reason we have a blind spot. That blind spot
is completely unnecessary, and other examples of creatures exist that
do it the 'right' way around - like the octopus.
Or giving us an appendix in our intestines, so we can digest wood -
but not really since it's so atrophied it doesn't really work and
instead, at best, is a benign irrelevant thing, and at worst leads
to a medical emergency. Evolution can explain why such a vestige
exists - it exists in all mammals, and most OTHER mammals can
digest some degree of wood and bark - their appendix is still
functional. Obviously, our ancestors did eat wood, but we don't
anymore and so the body part to digest it is fading more and more
with each generation. But intelligent design cannot explain
why such a thing, which at BEST has zero effect, and at worst
has the potential to kill us, exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
01 May 2004 08:25:13 AM |
|
|
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote in message news:<proto-B7FA2C.19393130042004@reader2.panix.com>...
In article <O.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not made humans in a
fashion such that they wouldn't ever choke. Surely, if God made
humans, that God would have taken steps when designing to ensure that
humans didn't ever choke. Yet humans do choke. Therefore God
apparently did not design humans.
<Snip>
Consider the prostrate gland and how the urethra passes through it, and
how the prostrate gland grows during middle age blocking the urethra. Or
placing the birth canal in women _there_ of all places. Or giving us a
gene for producing vitamin C that doesn't work.
What do these illustrations demonstrate?:
That the Judeo-Christian God apparently did not design humans?
That the God of Islam apparently did not design humans?
That a Hindu God apparently did not design humans?
That some intelligent entity or entities (perhaps with a sadistic or
at least uncaring streak) apparently did not design humans?
That totally-mindless-at-every-level processes _did_ give rise to
humans?
What?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
01 May 2004 06:45:09 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0405010529.666c3ac5@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<proto-B7FA2C.19393130042004@reader2.panix.com>...
In article <O.0404291936.4711aa0e@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
<snip>
I cannot think of a reason for God to have not made humans in a
fashion such that they wouldn't ever choke. Surely, if God made
humans, that God would have taken steps when designing to ensure that
humans didn't ever choke. Yet humans do choke. Therefore God
apparently did not design humans.
<Snip>
Consider the prostrate gland and how the urethra passes through it, and
how the prostrate gland grows during middle age blocking the urethra. Or
placing the birth canal in women _there_ of all places. Or giving us a
gene for producing vitamin C that doesn't work.
What do these illustrations demonstrate?:
That the Judeo-Christian God apparently did not design humans?
That the God of Islam apparently did not design humans?
That a Hindu God apparently did not design humans?
That some intelligent entity or entities (perhaps with a sadistic or
at least uncaring streak) apparently did not design humans?
That totally-mindless-at-every-level processes _did_ give rise to
humans?
What?
I'll take the to totally-mindless-at-every-level processes. Either that
or Aphrodite subcontracted the work. Hmm, being under the influence of
Aphrodite does make some men "totally-mindless-at-every-level".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 10:34:05 PM |
|
|
Please present some evidence of your existence. I do not see you.
All I see are some arrangements of letters into meaning-laden words
and sentences. I'm not sure that seeing meaning-laden words is
conclusive evidence for an intelligence(s) that was/were responsible
for the appearance of those meaningful arrangements of letters.
Present some evidence of your existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 07:29:33 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404291938.30eb1746@posting.google.com>...
Please present some evidence of your existence.
You first.
I do not see you. All I see are some arrangements of letters
into meaning-laden words and sentences. I'm not sure that
seeing meaning-laden words is conclusive evidence for an
intelligence(s) that was/were responsible for the appearance
of those meaningful arrangements of letters. Present some
evidence of your existence.
I'll take this paragraph as further proof that David
can make *any* argument by analogy look silly if he
phrases it just right.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 08:36:46 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0404301633.60c66e58@posting.google.com...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
news:<b1c67abe.0404291938.30eb1746@posting.google.com>...
Please present some evidence of your existence.
You first.
I do not see you. All I see are some arrangements of letters
into meaning-laden words and sentences. I'm not sure that
seeing meaning-laden words is conclusive evidence for an
intelligence(s) that was/were responsible for the appearance
of those meaningful arrangements of letters. Present some
evidence of your existence.
I'll take this paragraph as further proof that David
can make *any* argument by analogy look silly if he
phrases it just right.
And he usually phrases it perfectly. :-)
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 06:34:21 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in news:b1c67abe.0404291938.30eb1746
@posting.google.com:
Please present some evidence of your existence. I do not see you.
All I see are some arrangements of letters into meaning-laden words
and sentences. I'm not sure that seeing meaning-laden words is
conclusive evidence for an intelligence(s) that was/were responsible
for the appearance of those meaningful arrangements of letters.
Present some evidence of your existence.
Your challenge itself is evidence that he exists.
If you respond to this message, that action will be evidence that you know
that *I* exist.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 11:26:38 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
A manufacturing stamp?
A label reading, "Squorg Made This"?
A picture of a designer? A name? A place in the sky where we can point
to and say, "The designer came from that star right there!"
Or, perhaps, something simple like, "If ID theory is correct, then we
should expect to see observation X, which can be tested in a scientific
laboratory under reproducible conditions."
Just the last would do quite nicely, thank you.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 09:49:59 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:26:38 PM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 10:49:14 AM |
|
|
On 2004-04-29, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
This is interesting. I'd like to see where it is that you see
intelligence in biology?
I see things like: junk DNA and non-expressed DNA that must be
replicated with every cell division wasting valuable cell resources;
transcription of useless parts of DNA to RNA that require complex
enzymes to snip them out again wasting valuable cell resources;
multistep synthetic pathways that lead to products that serve no useful
purpose and must be metabolized back to their constituents wasting
valuable cell resources. I see developmental processes that result in
cells that are meticulously copied only to be discarded later; cells
that are meticulously maintained and repaired yet show no usefulness
to the host organism; cells that contain internal timebombs waiting to
go off and destroy the host organism. I see organisms with complex
and elaborate mechanisms whose only "purpose" is to thwart complex and
elaborate mechanisms in other organisms. I see organisms producing
staggeringly numerous amounts of offspring, the majority of which
will never survive to adulthood. I see a world that seems to be
unnecessarily complex in order to perform its... what is it supposed
to do? In short, I see a planet of biota all interacting via ad hoc
mechanisms that seem to serve only to supply a minuscule amount of
entropy to a nearby main-sequence star.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 01:31:45 PM |
|
|
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." <postmaster@hoxnet.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9297o.qi.postmaster@wweb.owens-ill.com...
On 2004-04-29, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message
news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could
be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper
bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to
scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly
hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate
students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective
theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are
idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You
pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can
only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for
god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just
because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a
lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
This is interesting. I'd like to see where it is that you see
intelligence in biology?
I see things like: junk DNA and non-expressed DNA that must be
replicated with every cell division wasting valuable cell resources;
transcription of useless parts of DNA to RNA that require complex
enzymes to snip them out again wasting valuable cell resources;
multistep synthetic pathways that lead to products that serve no useful
purpose and must be metabolized back to their constituents wasting
valuable cell resources. I see developmental processes that result in
cells that are meticulously copied only to be discarded later; cells
that are meticulously maintained and repaired yet show no usefulness
to the host organism; cells that contain internal timebombs waiting to
go off and destroy the host organism. I see organisms with complex
and elaborate mechanisms whose only "purpose" is to thwart complex and
elaborate mechanisms in other organisms. I see organisms producing
staggeringly numerous amounts of offspring, the majority of which
will never survive to adulthood. I see a world that seems to be
unnecessarily complex in order to perform its... what is it supposed
to do? In short, I see a planet of biota all interacting via ad hoc
mechanisms that seem to serve only to supply a minuscule amount of
entropy to a nearby main-sequence star.
Oo, well said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 11:13:52 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
I'm not a biologists by any means, neither am I ignorant of biology.
I grant you that biology "strongly exhibit the appearance of design"
if one squints hard enough, *really, really wants* to see appearance
of design by one's favorite deity and is ignorant of biology and
science in general.
HTH.
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 12:18:09 PM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6pvlj$etg2p$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
I'm not a biologists by any means, neither am I ignorant of biology.
I grant you that biology "strongly exhibit the appearance of design"
if one squints hard enough, *really, really wants* to see appearance
of design by one's favorite deity and is ignorant of biology and
science in general.
HTH.
Zoologist Dawkins thinks that biology strongly exhibits the appearance
of having been the product of intelligence. Do you agree with me on
this point about Dawkins, or not?
If you do agree with me, what, if any, [SP]"favorite deity" does
Dawkins have? Perhaps Darwin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 06:39:17 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
(david ford):
[snip]
Zoologist Dawkins thinks that biology strongly exhibits the appearance
of having been the product of intelligence. Do you agree with me on
this point about Dawkins, or not?
If you do agree with me, what, if any, [SP]"favorite deity" does
Dawkins have? Perhaps Darwin?
Yeah, you figured it out. Dawkins thinks that Darwin designed all
life on Earth.
Sheesh.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evoluti | | | | | | |
