This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years. >>
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life.
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
You met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doinglife. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your
religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck
denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally
been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when
you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same
boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very
much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe
and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would
have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists.
The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the
rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They
were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the
next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been
built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he
doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he
never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in
context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin
of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to
tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just
the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in
the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should
tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as
stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent
and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish
because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature,
and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the
creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like
the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least
make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3 denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what
we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that,
that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the
ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have
today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the
universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible,
but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the
Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
You met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doing
it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your
religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck
denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally
been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when
you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same
boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very
much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe
and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would
have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists.
The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the
rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They
were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the
next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been
built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he
doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he
never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in
context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin
of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to
tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just
the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in
the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should
tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as
stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent
and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish
because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature,
and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the
creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like
the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least
make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3 denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what
we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that,
that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the
ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have
today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the
universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible,
but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the
Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to
understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of naturalistic
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
You met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to
wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doing
it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your
religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck
denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious
beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally
been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you
can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to
temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when
you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same
boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without
remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very
much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both
understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical
creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist
support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe
and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that
demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would
have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID
perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists.
The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the
rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They
were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only
supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the
next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been
built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is
responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he
doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he
never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in
context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in
terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin
of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to
believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just
the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in
the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should
tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as
stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent
and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There
isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish
because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature,
and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the
creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like
the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least
make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3
denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what
we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that,
that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the
ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have
today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the
universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of
their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible,
but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as
biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic
evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the
Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to
understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
You met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to
wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doing
it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your
religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck
denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious
beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally
been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you
can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to
temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when
you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same
boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without
remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very
much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both
understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical
creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist
support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe
and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that
demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would
have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID
perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists.
The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the
rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They
were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only
supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the
next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been
built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is
responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he
doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he
never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in
context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in
terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin
of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to
believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just
the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in
the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should
tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as
stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent
and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There
isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish
because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature,
and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the
creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like
the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least
make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3
denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what
we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that,
that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the
ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have
today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the
universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of
their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible,
but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as
biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic
evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the
Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
Just to be clear, I pasted your post verbatim into ChatGPT, which generated the summary I quoted.
It's ironic that Tour is making similar allegations about OoL research as you make about ID. His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of naturalisticFor those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth andYou met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doing
it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck
denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same
boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists.
The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They
were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been
built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin
of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature, and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3 denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that,
that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the
ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible,
but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the
Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of naturalisticFor those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things happen.They then stop. A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic
But as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
You met an end to the denial too. Refusing to deal with why you have to wallow in the denial should make you want to rethink why you are doing it. This is obviously not anything to do in order to support your religious beliefs. Kalk couldn't do it any longer. Now he is stuck denying the denial. He obviously still wants to support his religious beliefs, but he doesn't seem to know what to do next.
Using the Top Six (the origin of life is #3) as they have traditionally been dishonestly used by creationists, should not be an option when you can't face what they tell you about this reality. Just using them to temporarily lie to yourself about something should not be an option when you know that you will end up denying the denial. Tour is in the same boat with you, and it is something that you should deal with, without remaining willfully ignorant of reality.
Denton and Behe told you decades ago that IDiots could not expect very much to change with any IDiotic scientific successes because they both understood that it was what was between the gaps that most Biblical creationists could not deal with. The majority of IDiotic creationist support had always come from the YEC creationist faction, and both Behe and Denton were old earth theistic evolutionists. They knew that demonstrating that some designer was responsible for the Top Six would have never resulted in anything that the YEC could live with, and the ID perps had inherited the Top Six from the YEC scientific creationists. The ID perps got away with it for decades because they fed them to the rubes as the Scientific creationists had fed them to the rubes. They were only used as disembodied bits of denial that creationists were only supposed to temporarily lie to themselves about before moving on to the next bit of denial. Nothing positive was ever supposed to have been built out of the Top Six. No science was ever going to be accomplished.
The last thing that Tour wants to do is to demonstrate that some god is responsible for the origin of life on earth. He even claims that he doesn't know of any way to do that. What he needs to admit is that he never wanted to be able to demonstrate that some god fills gap #3 in context with the other Top Six. Just like you, Tour likely doesn't want to believe in that god.
Why didn't you demonstrate that you could deal with #3 of the Top Six in terms of the gap that you took so much time to define? Using the origin of life for gap denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to believe in the god that would fill that gap.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Isn't it sad that you can't deal with reality. You do not need an AI to tell you that what Tour and you are doing is stupid and dishonest. Just the fact that you do not want to believe in the god that fills gap #3 in the order in which the gaps must have occurred in this universe should tell you that wacko denial and willful ignorance will not change reality.
The Top Six killed IDiocy on TO because god-of-the-gaps denial is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been, and in the end the competent and informed had to run from what they had supported for decades. There isn't any science that IDiotic type creationists want to accomplish because science is just the best means we have for understanding nature, and nature isn't Biblical enough for most IDiots.
What Tour and you need to do is try to figure out what nature (the creation) actually is and try to fit it into your Biblical beliefs like the Reason to Believe IDiots have failed to do. You should want to do
it to see if you can do better than the failures. You need to at least make the attempt to see if you can reinterpret the Bible so that gap #3 denial might be reconcilable with your religious beliefs.
Running from reality like you are doing above will never change reality.
There are Biblical creationists that have given up on trying to fit what we know about nature into any Biblical context. You likely know that, that is the next logical step since the failure of gap denial.
Denton is probably a deist and has claimed that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Behe claims that his designer is active and has tweeked the universe every once in a while to create what we have today. Neither of their options fits into the usual literal interpretation of the Bible, but they obviously do not care because they understand things, such as biological evolution is a fact of nature.
The Biblical creationists at BioLogos are also old earth theistic evolutionists. It is just what you get when you put a designer in the Top Six gaps.
Ron Okimoto
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. >https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific beliefs?Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life.
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
They then stop.Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things happen.
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groupsevolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible withwhatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific beliefs?Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.
But as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >> > origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >> > questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >> > has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >> > could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >> > life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >> > would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >> > ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >> > What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >> > this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >> > promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >> > have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >> > any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >> > what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >> > for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >> > claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >> > various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> > have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> > 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do >[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad >like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life.
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 13:59:05 -0500, RonO <[email protected]> wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years. >>
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
My first impression is there's a lot of wiggle room between "answer
question X" and "utterly clueless". I suspect the judges will
evaluate the answers based on the former, and Tour et al will say that
proves they're "clueless".
My second impression is, there's a hidden "gotcha" in each of Tour's questions. Unfortunately, I have forgotten more than I remember about biochemistry to suss it out.
Question 4 is an odd one, even for Tour. He doesn't say how to show
the origin of specified information. @18:55 he gives an example; "I
have a thought in my mind". So what is the origin of his thought? By
his own words, it's not his mind, because he says the physical medium
is "secondary". Tour doesn't answer his own example.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind younaturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent answer to these questions would entail.They then stop.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things happen.
That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is onlyevolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or
Lennox or Meyer are like this. If he doesn't believe it, he is knowingly knocking
down a straw man below.
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups
The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.
at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
be capable of within a few centuries.
As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with
Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimes
wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
I congratulate you.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia, and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,
but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something youbeliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.
showed some curiosity about:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ
Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific
Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before going on to express your skepticism.
Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no needBut as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about
the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientificRon Okimoto
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do [a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
Peter Nyikos
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.The other "Mark" is me also, I had briefly misconfigured my google account username to not include the "E".
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
happen. They then stop.Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent
answer to these questions would entail.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things
evolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or
Lennox or Meyer are like this. If he doesn't believe it, he is knowingly knocking
down a straw man below.
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups
whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,
at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
be capable of within a few centuries.
As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with
beliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimes
wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea
about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
I congratulate you.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia, and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,I have been watching but not yet posted there.
but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something you
showed some curiosity about:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ
Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific
Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before
going on to express your skepticism.
Bill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no needBut as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
Bill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:04:03 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >don't recall encountering before.
Too bad you *still* won't learn how to use a real news server. "Mark"
has the same email as "MarkE" <[email protected]>
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >> > origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >> > questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >> > has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >> > could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >> > Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >> > to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >> > is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >> > ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >> > What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >> > what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >> > years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >> > this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >> > promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >> > have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >> > any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >> > the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >> > what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >> > for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >> > Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >> > claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >> > can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >> > various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >> > Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >> > ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> > have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> > 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do >[a rather low bar to clear].
There is no scientific basis for denial of evolution, which is the
basis for Tour's criticism of OoL and abiogenesis research.
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
I bet 100 Quatloos your sense of humor will improve as much by the end
of the week as it has in the last decade aka not at all.
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth andRon O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
That's ok. Neither do you, Mark, Mark E, nor Tour, a Usenet
Hat-Trick.
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be answered?
Isn't that what makes it science?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be
answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth,
that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
On 9/19/23 7:33 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be
answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth,
that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
You'll take any excuse to bully and attack, eh?
I won't bother replying to your content, since people who can read for comprehension can, I think, understand my point well enough.
And since
you don't want to understand it, there is no point explaining it to you.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
Bill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet you
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so struggle.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 9/16/2023 6:31 PM, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent answer to these questions would entail.They then stop.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things happen.
That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or
Lennox or Meyer are like this.
down a straw man below.evolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups
The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.
at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
be capable of within a few centuries.
As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with
Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimesbeliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.
wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
I congratulate you.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia, and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,
but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something you
showed some curiosity about:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ
Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific
Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before going on to express your skepticism.
Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no needBut as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about
the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 10:25:40?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:04:03 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >> >don't recall encountering before.
Too bad you *still* won't learn how to use a real news server. "Mark"
has the same email as "MarkE" <[email protected]>
Too bad you couldn't tell Burkhard how your "real news server" looks
up the message-IDs of other people's posts. That ought to be
a real selling point for it.
Burkhard was talking in terms of continuing to post to talk.origins
and not wanting to use GG. I haven't seen much of him lately.
Coincidence?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be
answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit >panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth, >that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless. Mark aka MarkE's comment >suggests having "issues" is a problem for science. That's what is >ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
--On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be
answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit >>panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth,
that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
I'll have to do some checking on that, but I have explained several times in the past
how directed panspermia (DP) [1] could be tested some time in the future.
If the evidence for it turns out to be strong, their science could be the starting point for the theory of the source of some characteristics of life as we know it [2] and their evolution vs. design.
[1] This is the theory that OOL took place on an exoplanet and was sent here by intelligent species
who evolved there ca. 4 gigayears ago in the form of microorganisms. This is the brainchild
of world-class biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, and I've been carrying the torch
for them here in talk.origins since I first read about it in 1996.
[]
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:35:41 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
happen. They then stop.Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent
answer to these questions would entail.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things
That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or
Lennox or Meyer are like this.
Can you give a single example where Behe goes beyond finding "gaps" in either ToE or OOL research and makes a positive counterproposal with testable characteristics, or at least points ot a roadmap that will eventuay lead to such theories?
evolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,If he doesn't believe it, he is knowingly knocking
down a straw man below.
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups
whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,
at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
be capable of within a few centuries.
As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with
beliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimes
wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea
about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
I congratulate you.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.
I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia, and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.
I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,
but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something you
showed some curiosity about:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ
Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific
Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before
going on to express your skepticism.
But as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no need
for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be
answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit >panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth,
that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'll have to do some checking on that, but I have explained several times in the past
how directed panspermia (DP) [1] could be tested some time in the future. If the evidence for it turns out to be strong, their science could be the starting point for the theory of the source of some characteristics of life
as we know it [2] and their evolution vs. design.
[1] This is the theory that OOL took place on an exoplanet and was sent here by intelligent species
who evolved there ca. 4 gigayears ago in the form of microorganisms. This is the brainchild
of world-class biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, and I've been carrying the torch
for them here in talk.origins since I first read about it in 1996.
[]
I have some fondness for the idea that *some* pre-life chemicals were created in a non-aqueous environment; especially seeing more and more complex molecules (precursors?) being identified in asteroids.
This doesn't mean having to shift the OOL to a) aliens
or b) some other
planet (though Mars did have a bit of a head start, possibly some "infection" got carried on a meteorite from there to Earth?).
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet youBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so struggle.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet you respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the doubleBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle toWe all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so struggle.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:35:42?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
False advertising by you noted. No attempt is made below to explain the "sounding" part.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
Only because of MarkE's comment having been ripped out of context,
enabling you to put a perverse spin on what he wrote:
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
Where is your evidence that MarkE bases *anything* he writes about
science on Revealed Truth? Until you produce some, it is YOU that sound clueless.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:55:39?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/16/23 7:43 PM, Mark wrote:
[...] His informed and sustained critique of the field suggests that there are real issues to be answered. And he's not a lone voice. We live in interesting times.
A straightforward interpretation of "real issues" IN CONTEXT is "real mysteries for scientists to solve."
I sweetened the pot below with a real mystery for people in the humanities (specifically, linguistics) to solve.
Mark Isaak was too understated to get your anti-ID spin-doctoring across
to anyone who isn't tuned in to your favorite wavelengths, jillery.
Can you name any area of science which does not have real issues to be >> >> answered?
It is utterly ridiculous to talk about OOL this way -- which may be the reason you
neglected to keep any information about what "the field" is.
For comparison: the script of the ancient Indus Valley civilization has defied all attempts
over the last century and a half to decipher any of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script
Your bland generalization is like saying, in response to this enduring mystery,
"Can you name any area of the humanities that does not have real issues to be answered?"
None of this is very promising as grist for your spin-doctoring mill, jillery, >but perhaps you and Mark Isaak are on the same wavelength with the
word "issues." It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Mark will say about this.
If your sense of wonder has become this stunted, you may be heading for a joyless old age.
Isn't that what makes it science?
Do you even CARE how great of a mystery OOL is? Even if you were to posit >> >panspermia of various sorts as the solution of the beginning of life on earth,
that would just "kick the can down the road" wrt the ultimate mystery of how life began,
GIVEN that one form of it not only began but evolved into our intelligent species.
As to your .sig below, jillery, the ancient Roman Stoic, Seneca, put it much better.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Carl Sagan quotes Seneca at the very beginning of his book _Cosmos_.
If you can't get your hands easily on a copy, I can give you Seneca's words >any time I'm home and can get my hands on my copy.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet youBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so
struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet youBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so
struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.You dismiss science's exploration of OOL because it involves
speculation and sketchiness but make no attempt to explain you don't
regard speculation and sketchiness as a issue with ID.
In the thread about Deamer's book, you moaned about people not being
willing to discuss non-naturalistic explanations of origins; l offered
to engage in such a discussion, but you have not taken up my offer.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Correction, it was Martin Harran.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:35:42?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
False advertising by you noted. No attempt is made below to explain the "sounding" part.
To the contrary, my entire post identifies and explains the "sounding"
part.
That makes your comments here more examples of you sounding
clueless.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
Only because of MarkE's comment having been ripped out of context, >enabling you to put a perverse spin on what he wrote:
Really? Throwing your own words back at you, until you produce some
context that shows my comments are a "perverse spin", it is YOU that
sound clueless.
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
Where is your evidence that MarkE bases *anything* he writes about
science on Revealed Truth? Until you produce some, it is YOU that sound clueless.
Your comments here rote and mindless objections.
Don't you know MarkE
is quite open and vocal about his "reservations" wrt to
macro-evolution and his support for God as explanation?
They are
major themes of his posts. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for comprehension and less time posting mindless noise...
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:25:43?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:35:42?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
False advertising by you noted. No attempt is made below to explain the "sounding" part.
This statement by me was a compromise between the use your allies Ron O and John Harshman
make of words like "address" and "explain" and the one to which I naturally use it.
I see you distancing yourself from their use below, which amounts to "gave such
a knockdown argument that I don't want to talk about it."
To the contrary, my entire post identifies and explains the "sounding"
part.
The connection is all in your mind. You shifted to making an unexplained >implication about MarkE from which you are furiously backpedaling below.
That makes your comments here more examples of you sounding
clueless.
Second half of a GIGO noted.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
Only because of MarkE's comment having been ripped out of context,
enabling you to put a perverse spin on what he wrote:
Really? Throwing your own words back at you, until you produce some
context that shows my comments are a "perverse spin", it is YOU that
sound clueless.
Concerted attempt to deflect attention from your backpedal below, noted.
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
Where is your evidence that MarkE bases *anything* he writes about
science on Revealed Truth? Until you produce some, it is YOU that sound clueless.
Your comments here rote and mindless objections.
Your deflection attempt has turned libelous, and it has intensified:
even by the standards you have adopted, you made no attempt
to address my question; instead, you took refuge in equivocation
that constitutes your backpedal below.
Don't you know MarkE
is quite open and vocal about his "reservations" wrt to
macro-evolution and his support for God as explanation?
Besides being a major backpedal from "Revealed Truth" to "God",
it is also a dirty debating trick known as "moving the goalposts."
But you are not yet safe from scrutiny: after you posted your >spin-doctoring, MarkE made a direct reply to your adversary
Martin Harran, in which he did use "God" as an *alternative* explanation
for much of what goes on in evolution. But he fell far short of
claiming that God actually *is* the *correct* explanation.
He also explained his *personal* views, which go far beyond mine; OTOH they >also go FAR beyond "Revealed Truth."
Your use of "Revealed Truth" suggests that you have swallowed the interminably repetitious
rants of your buddy Ron O against against Glenn, MarkE, "Kalk"... hook, line, and sinker.
And now you libelously project Ron O's habits onto me:
They are
major themes of his posts. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for
comprehension and less time posting mindless noise...
"mindless noise" is a perfect description of Ron O's rants on just about everything,
which inspired MarkE's joke about "Ron Okimoto" being an early version of ChatGPT.
Your reaction to that joke shows that you have NO sense of humor
when the joke is on someone whom you have ardently supported in the past.
CONCLUDED in next reply to this bent-out-of-shape post of yours.
Perhaps tomorrow, but if not, then next week.
Peter Nyikos
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks to
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron OkimotoJames Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
Let's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
As for #2, there are again many examples.
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.complexity” of things that are alive. “Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918. He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “specified
ID creationist William Dembski bent this idea. He claimed that the specified complexity of Orgel was godlike in his 2002 book "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence." Lanham" Maryland: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.
He had earlier exposed the Intelligent Design effort as simple creationism in his 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone. Titled, “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:32:28 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote...
... yet another self-parody.
Not sure for what purpose.
Perhaps to
challenge other willfully clueless trolls.
<the following left uncommented for documentation purposes>
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:25:43?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:35:42?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
False advertising by you noted. No attempt is made below to explain the "sounding" part.
This statement by me was a compromise between the use your allies Ron O and John Harshman
make of words like "address" and "explain" and the one to which I naturally use it.
I see you distancing yourself from their use below, which amounts to "gave such
a knockdown argument that I don't want to talk about it."
To the contrary, my entire post identifies and explains the "sounding"
part.
The connection is all in your mind. You shifted to making an unexplained >implication about MarkE from which you are furiously backpedaling below.
That makes your comments here more examples of you sounding
clueless.
Second half of a GIGO noted.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
Only because of MarkE's comment having been ripped out of context,
enabling you to put a perverse spin on what he wrote:
Really? Throwing your own words back at you, until you produce some
context that shows my comments are a "perverse spin", it is YOU that
sound clueless.
Concerted attempt to deflect attention from your backpedal below, noted.
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
Where is your evidence that MarkE bases *anything* he writes about
science on Revealed Truth? Until you produce some, it is YOU that sound clueless.
Your comments here rote and mindless objections.
Your deflection attempt has turned libelous, and it has intensified:
even by the standards you have adopted, you made no attempt
to address my question; instead, you took refuge in equivocation
that constitutes your backpedal below.
Don't you know MarkE
is quite open and vocal about his "reservations" wrt to
macro-evolution and his support for God as explanation?
Besides being a major backpedal from "Revealed Truth" to "God",
it is also a dirty debating trick known as "moving the goalposts."
But you are not yet safe from scrutiny: after you posted your >spin-doctoring, MarkE made a direct reply to your adversary
Martin Harran, in which he did use "God" as an *alternative* explanation >for much of what goes on in evolution. But he fell far short of
claiming that God actually *is* the *correct* explanation.
He also explained his *personal* views, which go far beyond mine; OTOH they >also go FAR beyond "Revealed Truth."
Your use of "Revealed Truth" suggests that you have swallowed the interminably repetitious
rants of your buddy Ron O against against Glenn, MarkE, "Kalk"... hook, line, and sinker.
And now you libelously project Ron O's habits onto me:
They are
major themes of his posts. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for
comprehension and less time posting mindless noise...
"mindless noise" is a perfect description of Ron O's rants on just about everything,
which inspired MarkE's joke about "Ron Okimoto" being an early version of ChatGPT.
Your reaction to that joke shows that you have NO sense of humor
when the joke is on someone whom you have ardently supported in the past.
CONCLUDED in next reply to this bent-out-of-shape post of yours.
Perhaps tomorrow, but if not, then next week.
Peter Nyikos
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:40:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
James Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks toLet's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
Bloody run on lines are a pain in the ass. Format your posts.
Meanwhile, it's a dead end point of no use. Random condensation of amino acids is
of zero consequence to the origins of life. You ought to know and accept this.
As for #2, there are again many examples.
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Random polymerization of ribonucleotides may be, and probably is of significance.
But extra-terrestrial sources of ribonucleotides is just silly.
You're not going to get
enough production of significant polymers from some primordial soup made from
the rain of micrometeorites. It's nonsense. What's necessary is a flux of activated
ribonucleosides (potentially ribonucleotide triphosphates but alternatives need to
be considered). You need the synthetic engine that makes more and more and more,
akin to a dynamic flow chemical engineering solution.
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
I don't consider polysaccharide synthesis a problem, nor the synthesis of ribose.
specified complexity” of things that are alive.Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol 3,
Publishers.ID creationist William Dembski bent this idea. He claimed that the specified complexity of Orgel was godlike in his 2002 book "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence." Lanham" Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
He had earlier exposed the Intelligent Design effort as simple creationism in his 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone.
Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).Titled, “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of
The "specified complexity" argument is a gross misunderstanding of information
science. It's proponents typically abandon it after some time of trying to defend it.
Dembski has largely abandoned it.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, andcreates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. Iwould say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:40:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
Finally, someone (Gary Hurd) actually looks in detail at the challenge. Below, his commentary comes in for some criticism from both Lawyer Daggett and myself.
But then, talk.origins is a good medium for thrashing out differences of opinion,
as long as it is done in good faith. So let the chips fall where they may.
terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks toJames Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems; >>>
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
These were the *topics* of the different problems. Tour had specific challenges
pertaining to each one.
Let's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
Bloody run on lines are a pain in the ass. Format your posts.
The above paragraph from Hurd would be acceptable if there were a quotation mark at the end,
but here someone could be left wondering whether the quote continues later. [It doesn't.]
Meanwhile, it's a dead end point of no use. Random condensation of amino acids is
of zero consequence to the origins of life. You ought to know and accept this.
Yes, Tour asked for polypeptides of a certain length. Amino acids are just "building blocks."
Actually, "legos" would be a somewhat better term, because what distinguishes polypeptides from
Fox's "proteinoids" is that they are linear structures of amino acids joined by peptide bonds.
[Otherwise they don't "snap together" in the right way.]
montmorillonite produce mixes of 2’-5’ and 3’-5’ bonds. Yet in the latter there is a preference towards 3’-5’ bonds (up to 74 %) which is promising."As for #2, there are again many examples.
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Random polymerization of ribonucleotides may be, and probably is of significance.
But extra-terrestrial sources of ribonucleotides is just silly.
You might have done well to tell Hurd about the difference between nucleobases
and nucleosides/nucleotides. See his first attempt at a relevant citation, above.
You're not going to get
enough production of significant polymers from some primordial soup made from
the rain of micrometeorites. It's nonsense. What's necessary is a flux of activated
ribonucleosides (potentially ribonucleotide triphosphates but alternatives need to
be considered). You need the synthetic engine that makes more and more and more,
akin to a dynamic flow chemical engineering solution.
Getting closer to Tour's challenge: as with polypeptides, a specific kind of link is asked
for in Tour's challenge. The background for his distinctions was already in the Talk.Origins Archive in 2010:
"However, while these reactions make RNA-like polymers they do not yet solve the problem of the stereospecific 3’-5’ concatenation of monomers (Orgel 2004), found in all living organisms. Both the lipid-assisted synthesis and polymerization on
--https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Tour wants greater far greater specificity than 74%.
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
I don't consider polysaccharide synthesis a problem, nor the synthesis of ribose.
Under primitive earth conditions? Tour wants a specific disaccharide in quantity,
with 90% purity.
specified complexity” of things that are alive.Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “
Hurd shifts without warning to a completely different topic, and promptly produces a historical howler:
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature.
Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol 3,
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>You dismiss science's exploration of OOL because it involves
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet youBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so
struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
speculation and sketchiness but make no attempt to explain you don't
regard speculation and sketchiness as a issue with ID.
In the thread about Deamer's book, you moaned about people not being
willing to discuss non-naturalistic explanations of origins; l offered
to engage in such a discussion, but you have not taken up my offer.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, andcreates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution). God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. Iwould say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
James Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks to
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
Let's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
As for #2, there are again many examples.complexity” of things that are alive. “Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918. He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “specified
ID creationist William Dembski bent this idea. He claimed that the specified complexity of Orgel was godlike in his 2002 book "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence." Lanham" Maryland: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.
He had earlier exposed the Intelligent Design effort as simple creationism in his 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone. Titled, “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling well short of claimingcreates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows forwould say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence; for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common.
It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could
well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a lot of other things.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling well short of claimingcreates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence;
for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common.
It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could
well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a lot of other things.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:40:44?PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks to
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:00:39?PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
Can Tour do any better?James Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems; >>
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >> > have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >> > 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
Let's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
Bloody run on lines are a pain in the ass. Format your posts.
Meanwhile, it's a dead end point of no use. Random condensation of amino acids is
of zero consequence to the origins of life. You ought to know and accept this.
As for #2, there are again many examples.
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Random polymerization of ribonucleotides may be, and probably is of significance.
But extra-terrestrial sources of ribonucleotides is just silly. You're not going to get
enough production of significant polymers from some primordial soup made from >the rain of micrometeorites. It's nonsense. What's necessary is a flux of activated
ribonucleosides (potentially ribonucleotide triphosphates but alternatives need to
be considered). You need the synthetic engine that makes more and more and more,
akin to a dynamic flow chemical engineering solution.
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
I don't consider polysaccharide synthesis a problem, nor the synthesis of ribose.
complexity” of things that are alive. “Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918. He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "GeneticItem #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “specified
Publishers.
ID creationist William Dembski bent this idea. He claimed that the specified complexity of Orgel was godlike in his 2002 book "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence." Lanham" Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
He had earlier exposed the Intelligent Design effort as simple creationism in his 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone. Titled, “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "
The "specified complexity" argument is a gross misunderstanding of information >science. It's proponents typically abandon it after some time of trying to defend it.
Dembski has largely abandoned it.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:00:39?PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
James Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;terrestrial laboratory experiments. Likewise, condensation of Gly to form peptides in scenarios resembling those present in a primordial Earth has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus, Gly is a paradigmatic system for biomolecular building blocks to
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
Let's consider item #1.
There are many individual studies just this year. Here is a good review from last year;
Rimola A, Balucani N, Ceccarelli C, Ugliengo P. Tracing the Primordial Chemical Life of Glycine: A Review from Quantum Chemical Simulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 12;23(8):4252. doi: 10.3390/ijms23084252. PMID: 35457069; PMCID: PMC9030215.
Review article.
“Glycine (Gly), NH2CH2COOH, is the simplest amino acid. Although it has not been directly detected in the interstellar gas-phase medium, it has been identified in comets and meteorites, and its synthesis in these environments has been simulated in
As for #2, there are again many examples.complexity” of things that are alive. “Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918. He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic
We see extraterrestrial examples;
Oba, Y., Takano, Y., Furukawa, Y. et al. 2022 “Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites. Nat Commun 13, 2008 (2022).
I recall Tour specifically called out Jack Szostak. That can go back decades;
David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak
1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
Item #3, Polysaccharides, is a bit odd to me. What Prof. Tour seems to be digging for is the key saccaride Ribose.
This gives you some good background.
Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83
Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “specified
ID creationist William Dembski bent this idea. He claimed that the specified complexity of Orgel was godlike in his 2002 book "No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence." Lanham" Maryland: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.
He had earlier exposed the Intelligent Design effort as simple creationism in his 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone. Titled, “Signs of Intelligence,” Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:20:44?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:32:28 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
... yet another self-parody.
Yet another shameless piece of false advertising by jillery.
This time even jillery cannot claim that she made an attempt to justify
her nebulous allegation.
I say "nebulous" because jillery has never, in my experience, explained what >"self-parody" means in The World According to Jillery.
John Harshman parroted the word (but without the hyphen) in allegedly >characterizing something I wrote. But when I challenged him
to explain why he was using a figurative sense of the term that
is at odds with etymology, he clammed up. He never explained what the term >meant to him, nor did he try to answer my question of whether HE knew
what jillery meant by the term.
Not sure for what purpose.
"Not sure" is jillery's all-purpose announcement of what is almost certain >to be GIGO. And she doesn't disappoint her fans here.
Perhaps to
challenge other willfully clueless trolls.
More false advertising, to hide the fact that jillery is indulging in empty >bravado in emulation of the Black Knight of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail,"
after having been subjected to the equivalent of
cutting off both arms of the original Black Knight below.
[The Black knight, undaunted, tried to fight on with the use of his legs, >with the end result of both of them having been cut off, but even
that did not end the Black Knight's torrent of abuse.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)
Jillery is just the latest in a long line of Black Knight imitators in talk.origins.
I will be documenting another very recent imitator in reply to jillery either tomorrow or early
next week. Needless to say, the two are on good terms with each other.
<the following left uncommented for documentation purposes>
All this misdirection is probably designed to convince people who
have put me in a killfile (either actual or *de* *facto*) that there is nothing below
that it is worthwhile for them to read.
And that might make sense from *their* POV. It might severely
cramp the style of their artificially manufactured disdain for me if they >bothered to read it.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:25:43?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:35:42?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote...
...yet another example of sounding clueless.
False advertising by you noted. No attempt is made below to explain the "sounding" part.
This statement by me was a compromise between the use your allies Ron O and John Harshman
make of words like "address" and "explain" and the one to which I naturally use it.
I see you distancing yourself from their use below, which amounts to "gave such
a knockdown argument that I don't want to talk about it."
To the contrary, my entire post identifies and explains the "sounding" >> >> part.
The connection is all in your mind. You shifted to making an unexplained >> >implication about MarkE from which you are furiously backpedaling below. >> >
That makes your comments here more examples of you sounding
clueless.
Second half of a GIGO noted.
Mark aka MarkE's comment
suggests having "issues" is a problem for science.
Only because of MarkE's comment having been ripped out of context,
enabling you to put a perverse spin on what he wrote:
Really? Throwing your own words back at you, until you produce some
context that shows my comments are a "perverse spin", it is YOU that
sound clueless.
Concerted attempt to deflect attention from your backpedal below, noted. >> >
That's what is
ridiculous. If anything, Isaak's counter is too understated to get
through to those who rely on Revealed Truth.
Where is your evidence that MarkE bases *anything* he writes about
science on Revealed Truth? Until you produce some, it is YOU that sound clueless.
Your comments here rote and mindless objections.
Your deflection attempt has turned libelous, and it has intensified:
even by the standards you have adopted, you made no attempt
to address my question; instead, you took refuge in equivocation
that constitutes your backpedal below.
Don't you know MarkE
is quite open and vocal about his "reservations" wrt to
macro-evolution and his support for God as explanation?
Besides being a major backpedal from "Revealed Truth" to "God",
it is also a dirty debating trick known as "moving the goalposts."
But you are not yet safe from scrutiny: after you posted your
spin-doctoring, MarkE made a direct reply to your adversary
Martin Harran, in which he did use "God" as an *alternative* explanation >> >for much of what goes on in evolution. But he fell far short of
claiming that God actually *is* the *correct* explanation.
He also explained his *personal* views, which go far beyond mine; OTOH they
also go FAR beyond "Revealed Truth."
Your use of "Revealed Truth" suggests that you have swallowed the interminably repetitious
rants of your buddy Ron O against against Glenn, MarkE, "Kalk"... hook, line, and sinker.
And now you libelously project Ron O's habits onto me:
They are
major themes of his posts. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for
comprehension and less time posting mindless noise...
"mindless noise" is a perfect description of Ron O's rants on just about everything,
which inspired MarkE's joke about "Ron Okimoto" being an early version of ChatGPT.
Your reaction to that joke shows that you have NO sense of humor
when the joke is on someone whom you have ardently supported in the past. >> >
CONCLUDED in next reply to this bent-out-of-shape post of yours.
Perhaps tomorrow, but if not, then next week.
Peter Nyikos
In the immortal words of Yeshua Messiah (Jesus Christ): Those who have eyes to see,
let them see!
Peter Nyikos
[email protected] wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence; for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common. It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a lot of other things.
In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule comes
with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in the
40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual biases
and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the researchers
were confused and did not know what to make of the discovery. But this
was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what exactly,
is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations in DNA/RNA?
IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of questions.
Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired? Was the random mutations discovered by another set of random mutations and natural selection that devised the protein machines capable of proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by step exactly how and why this
occurred. I realize that a few mutations escape the detection and repair machinery and result in genetic diseases that we observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we observe
in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
[email protected] wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence; for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common. It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a lot of other things.
In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule comes
with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms. https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in the
40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual biases
and to lesser political expediences.
were confused and did not know what to make of the discovery. But this
was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what exactly,
is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations in DNA/RNA?
IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of questions.
Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired? Was the random mutations discovered by another set of random mutations and natural selection that devised the protein machines capable of proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by step exactly how and why this
occurred. I realize that a few mutations escape the detection and repair machinery and result in genetic diseases that we observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we observe
in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran
wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific
evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My
Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of the
Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling
well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as
candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct
divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates
matter, generates and embeds information, and creates living things
preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence;
for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common.
It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all
things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties."
If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to
give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne
out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I would say
there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being
too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists,
disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a
natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the
human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could
well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is
no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to
them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them
were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a
lot of other things.
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule comes
with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms. https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in the
40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual biases
and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the researchers
were confused and did not know what to make of the discovery. But this
was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what exactly,
is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations in DNA/RNA?
IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of questions.
Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired? Was the random mutations discovered by another set of random mutations and natural
selection that devised the protein machines capable of proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by step exactly how and why this
occurred. I realize that a few mutations escape the detection and repair machinery and result in genetic diseases that we observe. However, the
modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we observe
in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:00:20 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote...
... yet another self-parody. This time he pretends he doesn't [understand] >"Revealed Truth" or Monty Python's Black Knight skit. How does
anybody make up stuff like that?
It's nice to see something from you again, Burkhard. Before I get around to yournaturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?
words, I make a comment that segues rather easily into my reply to what you wrote.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:35:41 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to
understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
Positive statements have been made by Michael Behe: a practicing Roman Catholic; he's ratherhappen. They then stop.
a traditionalist, as one might guess from him and his wife having had 8 children. I do believe
quite a few others are upfront about their personal religious beliefs. As to how they impact
their attitudes towards naturalistic OOL, I'll have to check to be sure. Behe has actually
argued in two of his books in favor of common descent, but that only makes sense
after OOL of life as we know it.
Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent
answer to these questions would entail.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things
That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or Lennox or Meyer are like this.
Can you give a single example where Behe goes beyond finding "gaps" in either ToE or OOL research and makes a positive counterproposal with testable characteristics, or at least points to a roadmap that will eventually lead to such theories?I'll have to do some checking on that, but I have explained several times in the past
how directed panspermia (DP) [1] could be tested some time in the future.
If the evidence for it turns out to be strong, their science could be the starting point for the theory of the source of some characteristics of life as we know it [2] and their evolution vs. design.
[1] This is the theory that OOL took place on an exoplanet and was sent here by intelligent species
who evolved there ca. 4 gigayears ago in the form of microorganisms. This is the brainchild
of world-class biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, and I've been carrying the torch
for them here in talk.origins since I first read about it in 1996.
Behe wrote briefly about this in DBB, but he didn't show much interest in it.
As to why, I'll have to ask him. The whole ID-OOL connection might have gotten a lot farther than my summary above, had he shown more interest.evolved, or how individual species originate, they are constraining what sort of designer they are talking about - it must have certain capabilities, must have been active in certain times and places, etc.,
[2] "The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear."
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
If he doesn't believe it, he is knowingly knocking
down a straw man below.
A normal scientist (or a normal person looking for an explanation) would notice that whenever they say "A designer is required" to explain why the physical constants have the values they do, or how life got started, or how major taxonomic groups
whatever version of God they personally think the designer actually is.The only grain of truth here is that all IDers talk about "designer" in the singular,
at least in the writings that I have seen. For the things Bill lists, distinct designers
are called for, and I have consistently talked about them in the plural.
And in the latter two cases, no intelligence beyond our own is required for designers,
only a slightly more advanced technology -- but one that researchers of the future might
be capable of within a few centuries.
As to times and places, that is already deducible in many cases from fossil evidence.
and yet they never seem to try to put together a model of what the designer is like based on all the evidence they have from their "explanatory gaps," and they certainly do not make explicit attempts to show how such a designer is compatible with
beliefs? Far from it. Not what I'd prefer, but I learn to live with it.Here Bill Rogers has swallowed Ron O's spiel hook, line and sinker. I sometimes
wonder how much independent thinking he is capable of. My impression
is that he is a narrow specialist on malaria and hasn't had an original idea
about anything that it is worthwhile to have an original idea about.
Okay. Ron, I sympathise to some extent.Um...you do realize that Ron O didn't reply to you until after you posted this, don't you?
If you are ignoring Bill because you realize he has nothing to contribute to these side issues,
I congratulate you.
It can seem like ID sits on a hill taking potshots all day but never offering anything constructive.
I am an exception. Especially where the origin of life ON EARTH is concerned, I
have posted at great length about the possibility of directed panspermia,
and a little about undirected panspermia [as in Arrhenius/Hoyle/Wickramasinghe].
And among YECs, OECs, IDists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc, there are clearly a wide range of often mutually contradictory beliefs and attempts to reconcile science and theology.
I've taken a temporary vacation from that kind of talk, confining myself to what scientists
know and do not know about OOL on the thread,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI
I told you about this thread shortly before I began it,
but I haven't seen any sign that you've looked at it.
On Friday, I talked about other "Holy Grails", something you
showed some curiosity about:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/kD7NIzCEBQAJ Re: The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL
Sep 15, 2023, 4:10:37 PM
I myself read the scientific evidence as strongly favouring an old earth, but as you've seen I'm highly skeptical of the naturalistic origin of life, and also macro evolution. Do I have a coherently integrated set of theological and scientific
Perhaps you, too, would do well to learn some basics of biochemistry before
going on to express your skepticism.
But as you said in response to Burkhard, ID is in a different category from science; it is not about details, evidence, or explanation, and cannot be judged by those standards.
Here is why I suggest you take the right kind of "vacation." There was no need
for you to make such admissions to Burkhard, and if you knew more about the "Holy Grails," you would not even be tempted to make them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 9/23/2023 8:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran
wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific
evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My
Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of the
Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling
well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as
candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct
divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates
matter, generates and embeds information, and creates living things
preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into
existence;
for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common. >>> It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all
things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties."
If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough
to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne
out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I would say
there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being
too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists,
disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have
a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that
the
human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could
well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is
no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to
them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them
were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a
lot of other things.
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule
comes with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
;https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in the
40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual biases
and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the researchers
were confused and did not know what to make of the discovery. But this
was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
;In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what
exactly, is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations
in DNA/RNA? IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of
questions. Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired? Was
the random mutations discovered by another set of random mutations and
natural selection that devised the protein machines capable of
proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by step exactly
how and why this occurred. I realize that a few mutations escape the
detection and repair machinery and result in genetic diseases that we
observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we
observe in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
You still refuse to understand why the other anti-evolution IDiotic creationists ran from the Top Six. The origin of life is #3 and Fine
tuning is #2. The Cambrian explosion gap denial that you have put up previously is #5 and the Big Bang is #1.
The simple fact is that most IDiotic type creationists like yourself
never wanted to fill those gaps with their Biblical god.
fills the existing Top Six gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists so they ran from the Top Six and stopped claiming to be
IDiots.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
"So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
Biblical creationists cannot deal with what is known between the gaps,
and that was made clear to most of them when the ID perps presented them
in "their order simply reflecting that in which they must logically have occurred within our universe". The designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer. Wallowing in the denial will never change that reality.
If you try to use the Top Six in a positive and straightforward manner
you would likely join the ranks of the TO regulars that found that they
could not deal with the Top Six. The Top Six really did kill IDiocy on
TO, and your use of them one at a time is as worthless to you as it had always been to all the other Biblical creationists.
Ron Okimoto
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
RonO wrote:
On 9/23/2023 8:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran >>>> wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't >>>>> really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific
evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My >>>> Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of the
Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling
well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as
candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis >>>> 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct >>>> divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates
matter, generates and embeds information, and creates living things >>>> preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for >>> a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into
existence;
for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common. >>> It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with >>> the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all >>> things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties."
If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough
to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne >>>> out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I would say
there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being
too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists,
disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have
a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that >>> the
human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could >>> well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is
no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to
them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them >>> were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a >>> lot of other things.
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule
comes with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in the
40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual biases
and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the researchers
were confused and did not know what to make of the discovery. But this
was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what
exactly, is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations
in DNA/RNA? IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of
questions. Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired? Was
the random mutations discovered by another set of random mutations and
natural selection that devised the protein machines capable of
proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by step exactly
how and why this occurred. I realize that a few mutations escape the
detection and repair machinery and result in genetic diseases that we
observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we
observe in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
You still refuse to understand why the other anti-evolution IDiotic creationists ran from the Top Six. The origin of life is #3 and Fine tuning is #2. The Cambrian explosion gap denial that you have put up previously is #5 and the Big Bang is #1.
What I don't understand is your utterly insane obsession with the "Top Six"! You don't believe in anything, you have no life apart from TO.
What I know of the Top Six, I accept the as fair representative of ID.
The simple fact is that most IDiotic type creationists like yourself
never wanted to fill those gaps with their Biblical god.
Intelligent design is strictly about evidence pointing to design. One
may believe that the Bibical God is the designer. But that's exactly
what it is; it's a belief, but not of evidence. Do you know the
difference between of belief and of evidence? You show no indication
that you do!
The god that
fills the existing Top Six gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists so they ran from the Top Six and stopped claiming to be IDiots.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
"So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
Biblical creationists cannot deal with what is known between the gaps,
and that was made clear to most of them when the ID perps presented them in "their order simply reflecting that in which they must logically have occurred within our universe". The designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer. Wallowing in the denial will never change that reality.
Okay, no problem with that fact! ID is strictly about design, not about
any specific designer.
It occurs to me, that the gaps is where we find evolution, trying to
fill the gaps between species
with intermediate or transitional fossils.
If you try to use the Top Six in a positive and straightforward manner
you would likely join the ranks of the TO regulars that found that they could not deal with the Top Six. The Top Six really did kill IDiocy on TO, and your use of them one at a time is as worthless to you as it had always been to all the other Biblical creationists.
Biblical creationist!?? There is nothing in Intelligent Design taken
from your Bible. Nor is your Bible ever used as evidence to support ID.
So you should stop with your idiotic unsupported accusations charges and assertions as they do not apply to intelligent design.
Ron Okimoto
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
RonO wrote:
On 9/23/2023 8:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:In addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran >>>>> wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific
evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts.
My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of
the Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling
well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as
candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis
1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct
divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates
matter, generates and embeds information, and creates living things
preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into
existence;
for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in
common.
It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining
all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties."
If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough
to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne
out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I would say
there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being
too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists,
disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have
a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge
that the
human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could >>>> well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is
no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to
them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of
them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss
a lot of other things.
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in this
solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something else
which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule
comes with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
;https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in
the 40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual
biases and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the
researchers were confused and did not know what to make of the
discovery. But this was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
;In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what
exactly, is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations
in DNA/RNA? IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot of
questions. Exactly how was random mutations detected and repaired?
Was the random mutations discovered by another set of random
mutations and natural selection that devised the protein machines
capable of proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain step by
step exactly how and why this occurred. I realize that a few
mutations escape the detection and repair machinery and result in
genetic diseases that we observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we
observe in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
You still refuse to understand why the other anti-evolution IDiotic
creationists ran from the Top Six. The origin of life is #3 and Fine
tuning is #2. The Cambrian explosion gap denial that you have put up
previously is #5 and the Big Bang is #1.
What I don't understand is your utterly insane obsession with the "Top
Six"!
You don't believe in anything, you have no life apart from TO.
What I know of the Top Six, I accept the as fair representative of ID.
The simple fact is that most IDiotic type creationists like yourself
never wanted to fill those gaps with their Biblical god.
Intelligent design is strictly about evidence pointing to design. One
may believe that the Bibical God is the designer. But that's exactly
what it is; it's a belief, but not of evidence. Do you know the
difference between of belief and of evidence? You show no indication
that you do!
The god that
fills the existing Top Six gaps is not Biblical enough for mostOkay, no problem with that fact! ID is strictly about design, not about
Biblical creationists so they ran from the Top Six and stopped
claiming to be IDiots.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
"So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe."
Biblical creationists cannot deal with what is known between the gaps,
and that was made clear to most of them when the ID perps presented
them in "their order simply reflecting that in which they must
logically have occurred within our universe". The designer of the Top
Six is not the Biblical designer. Wallowing in the denial will never
change that reality.
any specific designer.
It occurs to me, that the gaps is where we find evolution, trying to
fill the gaps between species
with intermediate or transitional fossils.
If you try to use the Top Six in a positive and straightforward manner
you would likely join the ranks of the TO regulars that found that
they could not deal with the Top Six. The Top Six really did kill
IDiocy on TO, and your use of them one at a time is as worthless to
you as it had always been to all the other Biblical creationists.
Biblical creationist!?? There is nothing in Intelligent Design taken
from your Bible. Nor is your Bible ever used as evidence to support ID.
So you should stop with your idiotic unsupported accusations charges and assertions as they do not apply to intelligent design.
Ron Okimoto
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:20:36 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:You dismiss science's exploration of OOL because it involves
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet you >> >> respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the doubleBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so
struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
speculation and sketchiness but make no attempt to explain you don't
regard speculation and sketchiness as a issue with ID.
In the thread about Deamer's book, you moaned about people not being
willing to discuss non-naturalistic explanations of origins; l offered
to engage in such a discussion, but you have not taken up my offer.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution). God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural"."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?OK, but be warned that this is long :)
As a Catholic, there are obviously some differences between us in the
detail of our religious beliefs, but nothing I think that really
affects what we are discussing here. One point I would perhaps make is
that by accepting an old earth view, you are effectively accepting
that Genesis cannot be taken literally. I do not have an issue with
that, but I think you have to be wary of not taking Genesis literally
yet quoting it to support your case.
It seems to me that the key difference between us is that you think
that "even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes"
and more or less go on to dismiss natural causes completely. I do not
think that natural causes *on their own* are sufficient to explain
life but I see no reason for them not to be the mechanism by which our bodies came into existence and continue to develop. Essentially (and
this is where I would diverge from many other posters here) I believe
that OOL and evolution are teleological in character. As I have said
before, I am heavily influenced by the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
that everything in the universe - inanimate as well as animate - is gradually unifying towards a final "Omega Point" which he regards as
the fulfilment of Christ drawing everything into himself. [1]
I am a completely convinced dualist who believes that our *soul*,
whilst integrated with our body in this life, has a separate existence
of its own. Again, I am much taken with Teilhard's concept that "We
are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual
beings having a human experience."
Because of my focus on the soul, I don't find it at all helpful how
some Christian believers are so focused on our physical body - the
important thing to me is how it enables our soul to progress on its
journey towards that final destination, not how it biologically ended
up where it is. In my mind, evolution and OOL are just part of the
process that is taking us on our journey to the Omega Point and whilst
they are of great interest, their precise nature is not really all
that important in the overall scheme of things.
I will bring in here the point from the thread about David Deamer's
book as I think it's better to have a single overall discussion rather
than covering common ground in two different threads. In that thread,
I referred back to a review I did of Stephen Meyer's "God Hypothesis"
book where I struggled to get from a God fiddling about with molecules
and DNA to the theistic God, shared by Meyer and myself, with whom we
can have a personal relationship. You offered Special Revelation as a solution. I don't really grasp that. I totally accept the concept of
Special Revelation but I don't see how that gets us from a God
twiddling with molecules and DNA to a personal relationship with God.
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together. This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
- As things join together, they create a more complex entity with its
own characteristics. For example, an atom of Oxygen and an atom of
Hydrogen on their own have individual characteristics. When two atoms
of Hydrogen join an atom of Oxygen, we get water, a more complex
material with completely different characteristics from its
constituent atoms. The same applies in many other areas - an engine,
wheels, a metal shell, a braking system and a seat combined together
make a motor car. That motor car is more complex than the individual
parts that have combined together and it has a new characteristic - it becomes a mode of transport, something that none of the individual
parts could do on their own in their initial state. Teilhard argues
that the same principle applies to organic life; mammals are much more complex than plants and have far more functionality.
I think those first two parts are probably not particularly
controversial with scientists, but Teilhard goes on to develop his
ideas further in a way that many scientists reject.
- He argues that *awareness* which we see right across the animal
kingdom, is a direct result of that complexity - inanimate objects
like rocks do not have any awareness (though they do contain
*potential* for awareness as that exists in very atom); plants have
limited awareness, responding for example to sunlight and night and
the seasons. Animals have a much higher level of awareness,
particularly humans.
- He then says that from awareness in general, we get to the
recognition of God which is unique to human beings. That is why he
thinks that "Man is not simply a new species of animal (as we are
still too often told). He represents, he initiates, a new species of
life."
- Teilhard sees the next stage of human development as what he terms
the "noosphere", involving more complex social networks leading to
increased human integration and greater human awareness. Like many
people, I see what is happening nowadays with things like the
Internet, social media, AI and globalisation as the fulfilment of what Teilhard predicted the best part of a hundred years ago.
- Eventually that increased awareness will lead to the Omega Point
discussed above.
As I said above, Teilhard's writing is almost impenetrable for the
average reader. If you are interested in exploring his ideas further,
I thoroughly recommend two books by Louis M. Savary which go through
his ideas in a very understandable way:
"Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained"
Teilhard addressed his "The Phenomenon of Man" to the science
community and he focuses on scientific argument, staying away from
spiritual aspects although Savary does comment on these in his
explanatory book. He first put his ideas together in an essay in the
1930s but largely due to problems between him and Church authorities
[2], his book was only published posthumously in the year of his
death, 1955.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_2
"Teilhard de Chardin - The Divine Milieu Explained: A Spirituality for
the 21st Century"
As indicated in Savary's title, "The Divine Milieu" is a corresponding
book where Teilhard relates his scientific ideas to his religious
beliefs. Teilhard first wrote this book in the 1920s before The
Phenomenon of Man but again it was only published posthumously in
1957, two years after The Phenomenon of Man.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardin-Explained-Spirituality-Century/dp/0809144840/ref=sr_1_3
=================================================
[2] These problems were related to his theological ideas about Adam
and Eve and Original Sin, not his scientific ones though his
scientific knowledge did inform his theological arguments. I gave a
link to an explanation of these issues in a recent post: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0QlFstdyGJM/m/raQyFEjAAAAJ
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:40:43 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
It's nice to see something from you again, Burkhard. Before I get around to your
words, I make a comment that segues rather easily into my reply to what you wrote.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:35:41 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 7:50:40 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
Ah, here I see I am replying to you, MarkE.
I have a bunch of comments on Bill Rogers's prose, but then I want to remind you
of something I told you about and which you don't seem to have followed through with.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:30:38 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You only wish you had that excuse. Why not tell us how the current
origin of life gap, that you spent so much time defining, fits into the
relgious beliefs that you want to support with that god-of-the-gaps
denial? Tour won't do it. Do you recall the Shermer-Meyer discussion
where Meyer refused to relate his god-of-the-gaps denial to his
religious beliefs? Denial for denial purposes, will never amount to
anything worth lying to yourself about. The sad thing is that all the
IDiots did it to support their religious beliefs, but what happened when
they realized that the Top Six wasn't anything that they wanted to
understand enough to keep lying to themselves about the denial?
naturalistic OoL relates to their belief in a transcendent creator?Could you clarify which alleged denial you're referring to? Are you saying that no ID proponents are willing to make any statement about their personal religious beliefs, and/or any comment on how scientific evidence of the inadequacy of
Positive statements have been made by Michael Behe: a practicing Roman Catholic; he's rather
a traditionalist, as one might guess from him and his wife having had 8 children. I do believe
quite a few others are upfront about their personal religious beliefs. As to how they impact
their attitudes towards naturalistic OOL, I'll have to check to be sure. Behe has actually
argued in two of his books in favor of common descent, but that only makes sense
after OOL of life as we know it.
happen. They then stop.Good luck in getting Ron O to move out of his comfort zone, which a coherent
answer to these questions would entail.
If he thinks Bill Rogers made a good answer below, then he is deluding himself.
Ron uses a lot of words to say something simple. Here's the argument. IDers generate a list of things for which they find the scientific explanations incomplete or inadequate, and then argue that a designer was required to make those things
That's Ron O's private opinion. Bill Rogers seems to agree with it, but he is only
deluding himself if he sincerely believes that "IDers" like Behe or Lennox or Meyer are like this.
Can you give a single example where Behe goes beyond finding "gaps" in either ToE or OOL research and makes a positive counterproposal with testable characteristics, or at least points to a roadmap that will eventually lead to such theories?
I'll have to do some checking on that, but I have explained several times in the past
how directed panspermia (DP) [1] could be tested some time in the future.
But you did not claim that Bill Rogers misrepresent "you", but Behe, Lennox or
Meyer. So to give evidence for this, you'd need any one of these three offers some
positive claims about the designer
If the evidence for it turns out to be strong, their science could be the starting point for the theory of the source of some characteristics of life
as we know it [2] and their evolution vs. design.
[1] This is the theory that OOL took place on an exoplanet and was sent here by intelligent species
who evolved there ca. 4 gigayears ago in the form of microorganisms. This is the brainchild
of world-class biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, and I've been carrying the torch
for them here in talk.origins since I first read about it in 1996.
Behe wrote briefly about this in DBB, but he didn't show much interest in it.
Well, that should tell you something, shouldn;t it? Even though there are some
obvious candidates for a theory of the designer, Behe, in your own words, "does not show much interest in it".
Which is of course exactly what Ron, or Bill, have been saying.
So it's difficult
to see why you claim above that Bill "is deluding himself about Behe " when right
here, you essentially confirms his claim.
As to why, I'll have to ask him. The whole ID-OOL connection might have gotten a lot farther than my summary above, had he shown more interest.
[2] "The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear."
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:25:45 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution).It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for
a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into existence; for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in common. It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe.
God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
How about you?I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I have a natural
tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss a lot of other things.
They are without exception about as far away from science that one can get.
They are only interested in the mostly mindless regurgitation of the same old assumptions and dogmas that have been driven by atheism for the last few hundred years.
Darwinism is a joke. Life is so unimaginably complex, as is the universe, from the largest to the smallest, but they think they can put most of it in a nutshell, with biology for example, "random mutation natural selection" did it".
I suspect that perhaps subconsciously they know what they believe in is bullshit,
and that is why they wish to denigrate those who think outside the box. Not all scientists and learned thinkers are that way, but there aren't any here.
Why are you here? You sure don't get any intelligent debates from them.
I hear from them "spilling your brains out" in the background. As for you, perhaps you have not considered what used to be, looking for how the Creator did it by looking for "natural" causes. Just be willing to define natural first.
For instance, Harran's Teilhard de Chardin fan club membership is not a true >gauge of his actual beliefs.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
For instance, Harran's Teilhard de Chardin fan club membership is not a true
gauge of his actual beliefs.
This from the person who previously stated that:
"It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
about people with reality, without having produced an iota of evidence
for his opinions."
A pretty good example of self-diagnosis.
[...]
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:20:49?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
For instance, Harran's Teilhard de Chardin fan club membership is not a true
gauge of his actual beliefs.
I was speaking figuratively. There is no formal membership in the "fan club" >of people who have been fans of Teilhard since shortly after his death.
One of them gave an invited talk at my tiny (< 1000) liberal arts college >when I was a student there. That was over 60 years ago.
This from the person who previously stated that:
"It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
about people with reality, without having produced an iota of evidence
for his opinions."
This statement was ripped out of context, where your indirect beneficiary, >Ron O, admonished someone to start living in reality.
As usual, you had nothing negative to say about that.
A pretty good example of self-diagnosis.
[...]
Your illogical argument speaks for its illogicality.
Who do you think you are fooling?
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
This isThe opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
(1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth
basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus, inhospitable to life.
(2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away* from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming closer, it would
either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make evolution to our species essentially impossible.
(3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago,
a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that are larger than *that*],
all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution
on earth back a few gigayears.
And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence. The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot for life as we know it by the time one more
gigayear has passed.
And that's just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious.
Got to go now. Duty calls. I'll leave you with this thought:
have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
Peter NyikosMinor quibble: the sun is not growing hotter, and in fact will grow cooler as it continues to evolve. The earth will get hotter because the lumionosity of the sun will increase enormously.
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Yeah, jillery's trolling about echolocation
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:15:46?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:20:36 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:You dismiss science's exploration of OOL because it involves
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet you >> >> >> respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the doubleBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so
struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
speculation and sketchiness but make no attempt to explain you don't
regard speculation and sketchiness as a issue with ID.
In the thread about Deamer's book, you moaned about people not being
willing to discuss non-naturalistic explanations of origins; l offered
to engage in such a discussion, but you have not taken up my offer.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution). God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
OK, but be warned that this is long :)
How about you?
Thanks for the extended response.
As a Catholic, there are obviously some differences between us in the
detail of our religious beliefs, but nothing I think that really
affects what we are discussing here. One point I would perhaps make is
that by accepting an old earth view, you are effectively accepting
that Genesis cannot be taken literally. I do not have an issue with
that, but I think you have to be wary of not taking Genesis literally
yet quoting it to support your case.
Yes, the one thing that matters is, who is Christ to you?
It seems to me that the key difference between us is that you think
that "even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes"
and more or less go on to dismiss natural causes completely. I do not
think that natural causes *on their own* are sufficient to explain
life but I see no reason for them not to be the mechanism by which our
bodies came into existence and continue to develop. Essentially (and
this is where I would diverge from many other posters here) I believe
that OOL and evolution are teleological in character. As I have said
before, I am heavily influenced by the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
that everything in the universe - inanimate as well as animate - is
gradually unifying towards a final "Omega Point" which he regards as
the fulfilment of Christ drawing everything into himself. [1]
Would this have the appearance of theistic evolution, but is instead a teleological drive embedded in matter itself? Or perhaps one type of theistic evolution?
of these on the basis of special revelation (i.e. the Bible) seems to be a matter of interpretation - which is why it's possible to be a YEC, OEC or TE and otherwise doctrinally mainstream.
I am a completely convinced dualist who believes that our *soul*,
whilst integrated with our body in this life, has a separate existence
of its own. Again, I am much taken with Teilhard's concept that "We
are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual
beings having a human experience."
Because of my focus on the soul, I don't find it at all helpful how
some Christian believers are so focused on our physical body - the
important thing to me is how it enables our soul to progress on its
journey towards that final destination, not how it biologically ended
up where it is. In my mind, evolution and OOL are just part of the
process that is taking us on our journey to the Omega Point and whilst
they are of great interest, their precise nature is not really all
that important in the overall scheme of things.
I will bring in here the point from the thread about David Deamer's
book as I think it's better to have a single overall discussion rather
than covering common ground in two different threads. In that thread,
I referred back to a review I did of Stephen Meyer's "God Hypothesis"
book where I struggled to get from a God fiddling about with molecules
and DNA to the theistic God, shared by Meyer and myself, with whom we
can have a personal relationship. You offered Special Revelation as a
solution. I don't really grasp that. I totally accept the concept of
Special Revelation but I don't see how that gets us from a God
twiddling with molecules and DNA to a personal relationship with God.
Are you saying you're okay with special revelation giving us a God with whom we can have a personal relationship, but not sure how that leads to special creation as opposed to theistic evolution or de Chardin's Omega Point teleology? Yes...favouring one
========
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together. This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
- As things join together, they create a more complex entity with its
own characteristics. For example, an atom of Oxygen and an atom of
Hydrogen on their own have individual characteristics. When two atoms
of Hydrogen join an atom of Oxygen, we get water, a more complex
material with completely different characteristics from its
constituent atoms. The same applies in many other areas - an engine,
wheels, a metal shell, a braking system and a seat combined together
make a motor car. That motor car is more complex than the individual
parts that have combined together and it has a new characteristic - it
becomes a mode of transport, something that none of the individual
parts could do on their own in their initial state. Teilhard argues
that the same principle applies to organic life; mammals are much more
complex than plants and have far more functionality.
I think those first two parts are probably not particularly
controversial with scientists, but Teilhard goes on to develop his
ideas further in a way that many scientists reject.
- He argues that *awareness* which we see right across the animal
kingdom, is a direct result of that complexity - inanimate objects
like rocks do not have any awareness (though they do contain
*potential* for awareness as that exists in very atom); plants have
limited awareness, responding for example to sunlight and night and
the seasons. Animals have a much higher level of awareness,
particularly humans.
- He then says that from awareness in general, we get to the
recognition of God which is unique to human beings. That is why he
thinks that "Man is not simply a new species of animal (as we are
still too often told). He represents, he initiates, a new species of
life."
- Teilhard sees the next stage of human development as what he terms
the "noosphere", involving more complex social networks leading to
increased human integration and greater human awareness. Like many
people, I see what is happening nowadays with things like the
Internet, social media, AI and globalisation as the fulfilment of what
Teilhard predicted the best part of a hundred years ago.
- Eventually that increased awareness will lead to the Omega Point
discussed above.
As I said above, Teilhard's writing is almost impenetrable for the
average reader. If you are interested in exploring his ideas further,
I thoroughly recommend two books by Louis M. Savary which go through
his ideas in a very understandable way:
"Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained"
Teilhard addressed his "The Phenomenon of Man" to the science
community and he focuses on scientific argument, staying away from
spiritual aspects although Savary does comment on these in his
explanatory book. He first put his ideas together in an essay in the
1930s but largely due to problems between him and Church authorities
[2], his book was only published posthumously in the year of his
death, 1955.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_2
"Teilhard de Chardin - The Divine Milieu Explained: A Spirituality for
the 21st Century"
As indicated in Savary's title, "The Divine Milieu" is a corresponding
book where Teilhard relates his scientific ideas to his religious
beliefs. Teilhard first wrote this book in the 1920s before The
Phenomenon of Man but again it was only published posthumously in
1957, two years after The Phenomenon of Man.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardin-Explained-Spirituality-Century/dp/0809144840/ref=sr_1_3
=================================================
[2] These problems were related to his theological ideas about Adam
and Eve and Original Sin, not his scientific ones though his
scientific knowledge did inform his theological arguments. I gave a
link to an explanation of these issues in a recent post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0QlFstdyGJM/m/raQyFEjAAAAJ
Thanks for the references. I've only come across de Chardin in passing; I'm now curious.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah, jillery's trolling about echolocation
'Tis Glenn's troll, not mine.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:40:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
Finally, someone (Gary Hurd) actually looks in detail at the challenge. Below, his commentary comes in for some criticism from both Lawyer Daggett and myself.
But then, talk.origins is a good medium for thrashing out differences of opinion,
as long as it is done in good faith. So let the chips fall where they may.
James Tour’s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;
1. Polypeptides
2. Polynucleotides
3. Polysaccharides
4. Specified Information
5. Assembly of a Living Cell
These were the *topics* of the different problems. Tour had specific challenges
pertaining to each one.
specified complexity” of things that are alive.Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
1973 book “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Here was the first use of “specified complexity” as an attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude oil which is not alive, with the “
Hurd shifts without warning to a completely different topic, and promptly produces a historical howler:
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature. Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every
one of the *essential* components is essential.
To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap
does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not change an iota if ALL components are involved.
No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol 3,
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:.
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of logic (in my words, not his) is:
My guess would be from :"heart of Matter". And while one can criticise Teilhard- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
in lots of ways, this is not one of them. Essentially, he revives the Aristotelian idea
of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that's where they belong") with his
process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static aspects. The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual materialism. Not to everyone's
liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science", but consistent by design
with Newtonian physics at the least.
Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively straightforward.
Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely because A and B want
to be together does not mean they get together - in the words of the Stones, "you can't
always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
This isThe opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
(1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth
basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus, inhospitable to life.
(2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away* from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming closer, it would
either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make evolution to our species essentially impossible.
(3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago,
a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that are larger than *that*],
all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution
on earth back a few gigayears.
And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence. The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot for life as we know it by the time one more
gigayear has passed.
And that's just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious.
Got to go now. Duty calls. I'll leave you with this thought:
have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 12:45:50 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah, jillery's trolling about echolocation
'Tis Glenn's troll, not mine.The trolling to which I was referring was your claim that echolocation
had very little to do with bat evolution. In the part you deleted, I pointed out to Glenn
how wrong that was.
Here's more: it is naturally believed that bats evolved from animals possessing "echolocation." If the known extant relatives of those hypothetical echolocators (except bats themselves, of course)
aren't a lot better at it than we humans are, they've got their work
cut out for them to guess at the intermediate stages between it
and bat SONAR.
<libelous rest of your GIGO deleted>
--True more of some than of others. I know what a great challenge
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
to evolutionary theory is posed by the evolution of bat SONAR. You are afraid to
discuss it with me, so you snipped what I wrote to Glenn about it.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
My guess would be from :"heart of Matter". And while one can criticise Teilhard
in lots of ways, this is not one of them.
Essentially, he revives the Aristotelian idea
of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that's where they belong") with his
process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static aspects.
The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual materialism. Not to everyone's
liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science", but consistent by design
with Newtonian physics at the least.
Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively straightforward.
Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely because A and B want
to be together does not mean they get together
- in the words of the Stones, "you can't
always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
The opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
(1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus, inhospitable to life.
(2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away* from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming closer, it would
either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make evolution to our species essentially impossible.
(3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago, a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that are larger than *that*],
all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution
on earth back a few gigayears.
And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence. The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot for life as we know it by the time one more
gigayear has passed.
And that's just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious.
Got to go now. Duty calls. I'll leave you with this thought:
have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 12:45:50?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah, jillery's trolling about echolocation
'Tis Glenn's troll, not mine.
The trolling to which I was referring was your claim that echolocation
had very little to do with bat evolution.
In the part you deleted, I pointed out to Glenn
how wrong that was.
<libelous rest of your GIGO deleted>
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49?PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: >> You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific >> comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
My guess would be from :"heart of Matter".
And while one can criticise Teilhard
in lots of ways, this is not one of them. Essentially, he revives the Aristotelian idea
of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that's where they belong") with his
process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static >aspects. The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual materialism. Not to everyone's
liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science", but consistent by design
with Newtonian physics at the least.
Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively straightforward.
Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely because A and B want
to be together does not mean they get together - in the words of the Stones, "you can't
always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
This isThe opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
(1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth
basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth
would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus,
inhospitable to life.
(2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away*
from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming closer, it would
either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make
evolution to our species essentially impossible.
(3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago,
a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust >> that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that are larger than *that*],
all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution
on earth back a few gigayears.
And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence. >> The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot
for life as we know it by the time one more
gigayear has passed.
And that's just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious. >>
Got to go now. Duty calls. I'll leave you with this thought:
have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:15:50 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin, they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific
comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
My guess would be from :"heart of Matter". And while one can criticise TeilhardYou are talking below about teleology of unconscious matter, a concept
in lots of ways, this is not one of them.
that has been banished from scientific methodology for about as
long as appeal to supernatural influences has been.
Essentially, he revives the Aristotelian ideaThis is, at best, pseudoscience. It has been abandoned by scientists just as surely
of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that's where they belong") with his
process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static
aspects.
as the phlogiston theory.
The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual materialism. Not to everyone'sWhatever that means.
liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science", but consistent by design
with Newtonian physics at the least.
due to relativity) has long been divorced from Aristotle-friendly Newtonian speculations on what
makes gravity work at a distance. The current paradigm is the mass of the earth warping the space
around it so that the time-space geodesic of an object close to the earth
is the route it takes. For this, we have Einstein to thank.
Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively straightforward.Yeah, like the moon "wanting" to join the earth, item (2) below, whereas what it needs
Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely because A and B want
to be together does not mean they get together
- in the words of the Stones, "you can't
always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
is to get further away, and so it gets further away.
Sure.
A healthy abandonment of Aristotelian "final cause" in preference to Aristotelian "efficient cause" is the remedy for all this.
It turns out that this last sentence is highly suspect. The first stars were made exclusively of hydrogen and helium [yes, the Big Bang theory is that many-faceted]This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and so the only possible molecules were H_2. [Helium is chemically inert.]
But *was* there an appreciable quantity of hydrogen molecules? That seems
to depend on how hot the gases that condensed into the first star were.
At a high enough temperature they would just be atomic hydrogen, or even plasma:
a soup of free electrons and free protons.
And so, if Teilhard really meant to say all that, he probably blundered.
His only defense is that the Big Bang Theory was not yet the consensus
among physicists. Was he sufficiently knowledgeable to talk about why he rejected it,
despite it being the brainchild of a Catholic priest, and what he put in its place?
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
The opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
(1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth
would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus, inhospitable to life.
Did you read this far, Burkhard? How do you square (2) with your talk(2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away* from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming closer, it would
either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make evolution to our species essentially impossible.
about "telos" and the buzz word "immanent" that was such a fad
in the Teilhard social milieu?
Will you expand your use of the quote from the Stones by saying that(3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago,
a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust
that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that are larger than *that*],
all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution on earth back a few gigayears.
this one time the "wants" of the asteroid and its "needs" coincided?
For that, you (or Martin Harran) might need to assume that God wanted to wipe enough
of the slate clean so that *Homo* *sapiens* could evolve. That, however, is an extremely anthropocentric assumption. It's a well known conjecture among paleontologists
that, had Troodon or some other brainy non-avian dinosaur not become extinct,
its descendants might have attained human-level intelligence by now.
According to Erik Simpson, it is only the *earth* that will become hotter due to the increased *luminosity* of the sun. But the conclusion is still the same.And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence.
The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot
for life as we know it by the time one more
gigayear has passed.
The "molecule flaw" is one that hadn't even occurred to me when I wrote the above sentence. I think several readers (but not including Martin Harran) can figure out at least two reasons for the phenomenon I asked at the end:And that's just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious.
Got to go now. Duty calls. I'll leave you with this thought:
have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:15:46?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
Are you saying you're okay with special revelation giving us a God with whom we can have a personal relationship, but not sure how that leads to special creation as opposed to theistic evolution or de Chardin's Omega Point teleology?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 05:09:10 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:15:46?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
[�snip for focus�]
Are you saying you're okay with special revelation giving us a God with whom we can have a personal relationship, but not sure how that leads to special creation as opposed to theistic evolution or de Chardin's Omega Point teleology?
In regard to Revelation, I think that there is another aspect of
Genesis which is highly significant. Up until the early 20th century, >scientists were convinced that the universe had always existed. The
writers of Genesis 4000 years ago (and probably relating stories that
went a lot further back in time) somehow knew long before science even
came into existence, that the universe had a specific beginning. They
also knew that it came into existence not all at once but in a series
of sequential phases. The detail of those phases as related in Genesis
might not be completely correct but this comes across to me as like a
hazy memory which gets minor things wrong but the important things
right,
It seems like a good argument for either our "consciousness" to have
existed prior to, or at least at the Big Bang and somehow carrying
memories from that time or alternatively our consciousness being able
to somehow tap into the fullness promised by Christ where we will
understand everything, albeit in a limited or sporadic way.
[�]
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature.
Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for Behe's teaching aid of a mousetrap.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every
one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller's "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body,
in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential. That's what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine. And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose
80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe's actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them
was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X,
it doesn't swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
>To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap
does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I'm glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky
nitpicks miss that point.
>And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very
numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not
change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn't
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol 3,
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference. What say you to that, Mark?
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:10:50 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:15:50 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
You haven't answered any of MarkE's questions in his reply to this post of yours.
It's obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
That part ended at the following line:
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin, they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
I'm very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific
comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
My guess would be from :"heart of Matter". And while one can criticise TeilhardYou are talking below about teleology of unconscious matter, a concept that has been banished from scientific methodology for about as
in lots of ways, this is not one of them.
long as appeal to supernatural influences has been.
And that would matter if Teilhard tried to develop a new scientific theory. He doesn't, so it isn't - rather he develops a metaphysics of matter that tries as a philosophical doctrine to reconcile materialism with theology.
if you want to criticise it, you have to do it mainly on theological grounds -
from a scientific perspective, while it is not Occam-optimal, all observations and predictions are preserved, so there can't be a conflict.
As for the general idea of teleology of matter from a scientific perspective,
he is not quite as alone as you make him out to be
- Ayala e.g. has argued that
while it is always possible to translate teleological into non-teleological explanations and vice versa, the former carries excess explanatory weight that
can be beneficial
(in "Adaptation and novelty: teleological explanations in
evolutionary biology"). Or as Haldane put it, " "Teleology is like a mistress
to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."
True, Chardin's teleology is more radical than either, but he'd argue that he simply provides a metaphysical foundation for the intuition that they both share. He gets close to a philosopher you like though - Hans Jonas' "degrees of freedom" get in the same direction, as does Bergson's philosophy.
More recently, biologists like Grace de Laguna or Peter Corning seem to go in this
direction, these ideas wax and vane I'd say. And in consciousness studies, pan-
psychism has seen if anything a strong revival - we had recently a discussion
with Bill Rogers on this here on TO
Essentially, he revives the Aristotelian ideaThis is, at best, pseudoscience. It has been abandoned by scientists just as surely
of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that's where they belong") with his
process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static
aspects.
as the phlogiston theory.
It's not meant to be a scientific theory, it's a theological interpretation of
scientific theories that remains consistent with all scientific predictions while leaving space for an immanent deity.
The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual materialism. Not to everyone's
liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science", but consistent by design
with Newtonian physics at the least.
Whatever that means.
The physics of medium sized objects - i.e. not quantum physics
What has been kept of Newtonian physics (with modifications
due to relativity) has long been divorced from Aristotle-friendly Newtonian speculations on what
makes gravity work at a distance. The current paradigm is the mass of the earth warping the space
around it so that the time-space geodesic of an object close to the earth is the route it takes. For this, we have Einstein to thank.
Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively straightforward.
Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely because A and B want
to be together does not mean they get together
- in the words of the Stones, "you can't
always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
Yeah, like the moon "wanting" to join the earth, item (2) below, whereas what it needs
is to get further away, and so it gets further away.
Sure.
as I said, his philosophy is not everybody's cup of tea, but as a way to reconcile
direct divine presence with science, it sort of works.
Your won preferences
seem to be more wih Dawkins philosophical reductionism, which is of course fine, but
if you criticise Chardin you should do it for the right reasons, Conflict with
scientific theory is not one of them ,
A healthy abandonment of Aristotelian "final cause" in preference to Aristotelian "efficient cause" is the remedy for all this.
On 9/27/23 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
[big skip for focus]
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature. >>> Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for
Behe's teaching aid of a mousetrap.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every
one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller's "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body, in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential.
That's what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine.
And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose 80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe's actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X,
it doesn't swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap
does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I'm glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky nitpicks miss that point.
And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very >> numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not >> change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn't
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
Okay, I accept that Muller's interlocking complexity allows some non-essential parts. However, it does not *require* them. Thus Behe's (original) irreducible complexity is a subset of Muller's interlocking complexity.
Muller remains significant in that he showed how Behe's IC could evolve naturally, indeed that such systems might be expected to evolve.
Of course, he preceded Behe by decades, so he was not directly addressing Behe's claims, and he did not (as far as I know) mention the other ways
that Behe's IC could evolve gradually. For example, possible ambiguity
in what may be regarded as a "part", which Peter thinks he can ignore
now that he has made up a lampoon about it.
3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific
webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference.
What say you to that, Mark?
Why do you ask?? Did you forget to "skip for focus"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/27/23 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
[big skip for focus]
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature. >>>>> Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for
Behe's teaching aid of a mousetrap.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every
one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller's "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body, >>> in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential. >>> That's what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine.
And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose >>> 80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe's actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them >>> was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X,
it doesn't swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap >>>> does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I'm glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky
nitpicks miss that point.
And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very >>>> numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not >>>> change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly
nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn't
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
Okay, I accept that Muller's interlocking complexity allows some
non-essential parts. However, it does not *require* them. Thus Behe's
(original) irreducible complexity is a subset of Muller's interlocking
complexity.
That's like saying that humans are a subset of Mammalia. Doesn't tell
us much about our fellow humans. [Although Jonathan Swift did try
in Gulliver's Fourth Voyage.]
Muller remains significant in that he showed how Behe's IC could evolve
naturally, indeed that such systems might be expected to evolve.
By armchair theorists who don't look at such things but speculate in airy rhetorical
ways about them, minimizing their difficulty by the same one-size-fits-all generalities
that anti-ID zealots use to minimize the difficulty of OOL.
Find a system that could evolve more easily than the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum Minnich researched [see above], and work just as well or better, and which becomes
a bacterial flagellum by losing a bunch of parts.
Of course, he preceded Behe by decades, so he was not directly addressing
Behe's claims, and he did not (as far as I know) mention the other ways
that Behe's IC could evolve gradually. For example, possible ambiguity
in what may be regarded as a "part", which Peter thinks he can ignore
now that he has made up a lampoon about it.
Not a lampoon. A challenge for you to fix your thinking about the definition of "part"
to where you realize that the relevant parts of Behe's serious examples are MOLECULES.
Do you know enough chemistry to know how different chemical bonds are from physical
attachments? Or chemical reactions are from physical ones?
3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific
webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference.
What say you to that, Mark?
Why do you ask?? Did you forget to "skip for focus"?
What's the point of this snarky evasion? I am genuinely interested in the answer. If this
is the way search engines are to be in the AI-controlled future, it will be the nanny state
to end all nanny states.
I thought you were a *professional* computer scientist. Which better talk.origins
regular to turn to than you?
Correction: Teilhard's thoughts translated by Martin Harran. Maybe he would >be willing to explain to you how loose the translation is. His agenda forbids >him to discuss science, theology, philosophy, history, Catholicism, Biblical scholarship ... with me.
He is only interested in personal issues where I am concerned.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Correction: Teilhard's thoughts translated by Martin Harran. Maybe he would >>be willing to explain to you how loose the translation is. His agenda forbids >>him to discuss science, theology, philosophy, history, Catholicism, Biblical scholarship ... with me.
For reasons explained to you multiple times as in the example link
given earlier:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/NIB_EKCCffU/m/0vSy5dFEBAAJ
He is only interested in personal issues where I am concerned.
Correction of your so-called correction: what you try to brush off as
" only interested in personal issues" is me highlighting when you post >bullshit about me without "an iota of evidence" which is what you
yourself have described as a sign of psychosis.
<snip>
JTEM's parrot.
Pathetic, jillery wrote:
JTEM's parrot.
You are so feeble, so worthless that you believe you can
strengthen yourself by the mere mention of me.
I'll be telling you some things in this post about a talk.origins regular (Martin Harran) who posted
about me just before your post on this thread, JTEM. I'll be directly replying to him
tomorrow, if all goes as planned.
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Martin is also, AFAIK, the only t.o. regular besides me who is a member of the Roman
Catholic Church. That just goes to show how the term "catholic" was
very well chosen. Each Catholic has perfect freedom to go to either
heaven or hell after his/her/their/whatever own fashion.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Jonas could have cut thorough Teilhard's mumbo jumbo like a hot knife through butter.
Correction: Teilhard's thoughts translated by Martin Harran. Maybe he would >be willing to explain to you how loose the translation is. His agenda forbids
him to discuss science, theology, philosophy, history, Catholicism, Biblical scholarship ... with me.
For reasons explained to you multiple times as in the example link
given earlier:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/NIB_EKCCffU/m/0vSy5dFEBAAJ
He is only interested in personal issues where I am concerned.
Correction of your so-called correction:
what you try to brush off as
" only interested in personal issues" is
me highlighting when you post
bullshit about me without "an iota of evidence" which is what you
yourself have described as a sign of psychosis.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:50:56?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Jonas could have cut thorough Teilhard's mumbo jumbo like a hot knife through butter.
Correction: Teilhard's thoughts translated by Martin Harran. Maybe he would >> >be willing to explain to you how loose the translation is. His agenda forbids
him to discuss science, theology, philosophy, history, Catholicism, Biblical scholarship ... with me.
For reasons explained to you multiple times as in the example link
given earlier:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/NIB_EKCCffU/m/0vSy5dFEBAAJ
Even if what you wrote there were true, your "reasons" would be childish excuses.
See the part you snipped out of my reply to JTEM for my statement about how you are unique in
resorting to such excuses. Can you find anything to refute there?
Here, I'll save you a bit of trouble. I forgot about Ron Okimoto: he too has an agenda forbidding
him to discuss scholarly topics with me, but his excuses are a tad less self-centered than yours.
He is only interested in personal issues where I am concerned.
Correction of your so-called correction:
Yours is the opposite of a correction. You *illustrate* what I wrote
by ranting about a personal issue:
what you try to brush off as
" only interested in personal issues" is
...your interactions with me ever since you stopped
calling yourself AlwaysAskingQuestions. How many years has that been?
me highlighting when you post
bullshit about me without "an iota of evidence" which is what you
yourself have described as a sign of psychosis.
Are you trying to get on Ron Okimoto's good side by flagrantly distorting
my reaction to something he wrote?
Or are you trying to make me look ignorant of what psychosis is really like?
Or are YOU so ignorant of psychology that you think that posting bullshit >about someone without backing it up on the spot is a sign of psychosis?
Whatever the reason for posting the above falsehood about what I "have described...", it isn't pretty,
except perhaps in the eyes of Ron Okimoto or yourself.
Peter Nyikos
PS To spare curious readers a fruitless search on this thread, I've provided data
for the statement about which you posted bullshit above, without an iota of evidence:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/TvU0pcdovFU/m/dVBq7qs3BgAJ
Re: More IDiotic Cambrian explosion stupidty for IDiots to deny
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >>about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected. What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
4) At that stage, you tried to jump on the bandwagon and sought to
join up with me in battling Jillery. (Note: on several occasions since
then, you have tried to claim credit for spotting what Jillery had
done in that post but you didn't spot it, you just picked up on my
step by step explanation.)
5) I declined your offer, telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery and that I am more than capable
of fighting my own battles.
6) *You* were the one who took great umbrage at me declining your
offer and thereafter went on a continuing sniping match against me at
every opportunity you got - and even inventing opportunity where none >existed.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected.
What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
4) At that stage,
you tried to jump on the bandwagon
and sought to join up with me in battling Jillery.
5) I declined your offer,
telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery.
Pathetic, jillery wrote:
JTEM's parrot.
You are so feeble, so worthless that you believe you can
strengthen yourself by the mere mention of me.
We both know who the nut job is.
It is the one that has assiduously
removed everything that he couldn't deal with in this thread to the
point where he didn't even know what he was in denial of.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:50:58?PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Pathetic, jillery wrote:
JTEM's parrot.
You are so feeble, so worthless that you believe you can
strengthen yourself by the mere mention of me.
JTEM, you might wonder why I made such a big deal about a third party,
Martin Harran, in my first reply to this post of yours.
Fact is, I didn't have time until now to make the connection clear.
Martin posted a shameless lie about something I wrote in support of
you against Ron Okimoto last month. Here is how that had transpired:
_________________________ excerpt, Ron O going first__________________________
We both know who the nut job is.
Everyone would know that the nut job is you,
were it not for the fact that JTEM was uncommonly
merciful to you by snipping the following nonsense by you:
"What a nut job. When are you going to try to understand what reality >actually is?"
It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
about people [1] with reality, without having produced an iota
of evidence for his opinions.
[1] This includes the author of the Evolution News article, David Coppedge, >and Glenn, and "Kalk" (Kalkidas), and now JTEM.
It is the one that has assiduously
removed everything that he couldn't deal with in this thread to the
point where he didn't even know what he was in denial of.
The truth is just the opposite: he removed the incriminating
evidence against you and replaced it with the harmless "[---nut job---]".
And you are showing another sign of psychosis: a belief that you
can enter another's mind to the point of being able to
ascertain that "he didn't even know what he was in denial of."
Where's the description of "what he was in denial of"?
You conveniently neglected to include one.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/TvU0pcdovFU/m/dVBq7qs3BgAJ
Re: More IDiotic Cambrian explosion stupidty for IDiots to deny
Sep 18, 2023, 8:40:41?PM -UTC - 4
This is the excerpt which Martin shamelessly distorted as follows,
just two posts above this one of yours:
## you post bullshit about me without "an iota of evidence" which is what you >## yourself have described as a sign of psychosis.
Unsurprisingly, Martin neglected to describe any examples of the "bullshit" >that he was alleging.
Some day Martin might decide to confront you more directly, JTEM, or
to ally himself with Ron O more openly, and
it is good for you to know what sorts of wild distortions he is
capable of. If you click on that url, and start scrolling down,
you will see a wild orgy of spin-doctoring of earlier events by him.
Most of it is in the category of "a lie can go halfway around the world
while the truth is still putting its boots on." If you are in doubt about
how warped his rewriting of talk.origins history was on that thread, just ask and ye shall receive.
Peter Nyikos
I bow to your greater expertise; you have shown time and time again
that you are one of the most consummate liars in TO, albeit not a >particularly clever one.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:21:00?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >> >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected.
Like most internet hellions, you have a way of riding roughshod over conditional
word, phrases, etc. In this case, "may be" is one possible explanation
of your despicable behavior during the years since the incident took place.
But I stand by what I wrote before that last sentence.
What you wrote below about that incident is one-sidedly
self-serving, to say the least.
What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
In fact, it made your reply look like you were agreeing with jillery about being in
a different universe than honest people.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
2.5) You complained about what jillery had done. Her rearranging of text was buried
so deep in a long reply to you, that I would never have found it if
you hadn't complained about it. The complaint may have been in the process
of a post you describe next.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
Please provide an url and/or the Subject line and/or date for this post, or any
of the earlier posts on this dispute.
4) At that stage,
... seeing that jillery continued her denial of any wrongdoing, my disinterested thirst for
justice was kindled. On another occasion, it was jillery herself who wasn't getting
justice from your fellow ethnic Irishman [1] named Sean [2], who had accused jillery
of "character assassination," but refused to answer jillery's request to know what
meaning he attached to that epithet.
I told jillery that I believed Sean owed her an explanation, and added that >of course, whether she collected on "the debt" was entirely between her and Sean.
At that, Sean rather hastily gave a definition that I had never seen before. >Unlike the Merriam-Webster definition, it carried no hint that the accusations >involved had to be false, or unsupported.
This answer was satisfactory for all three of us. Case closed.
[1] I say "ethnic Irishman" since IIRC he lived in Los Angeles.
[2] His surname escapes me at the moment, but I know it wasn't "Dillon."
Back to the incidents at hand:
you tried to jump on the bandwagon
There was no bandwagon against jillery.
You had been battling jillery alone, and then I battled jillery alone for a long time.
I took tremendous abuse from jillery, and even more from her ardent ally >Oxyaena. Others jumped on the pro-jillery bandwagon, though in a milder way.
The same Sean I wrote about above posted a reply to me [but NOT to jillery], saying
that he wished I would stop, and claimed that I was "only hurting" myself by continuing.
I replied that there were only two, diametrically opposite ways that I could >make sense of that comment: One, that jillery is so much more popular
than I am that continuing would just bring more abuse on my head;
two, that I am so much more respected than jillery that it would be hurting >myself to be spending so much time on a fruitless pursuit.
Sean, predictably, did not address that, but simply reiterated his wish
that I stop. [No mention of the possibility of jillery stopping.]
and sought to join up with me in battling Jillery.
I don't recall any such seeking. I was acting on my own love of justice and had no problem
with you having completely fallen silent during the long battle.
[Here I've snipped an utterly false, demeaning claim by you. Will explain
if anyone, even you, requests it.]
5) I declined your offer,
I don't recall ever having made one. The only post I recall that even remotely
resembled a declination of anything came AFTER I finally stopped.
Then you attacked me so strongly for having gone on for so long that I told you
that you seem to have elevated "Mind your own business"
to the Eleventh Commandment.
Since then, I've found out that there was no need for an eleventh for YOU, >since the commandment against bearing false witness against
your neighbor is one you have no use for, at least not in the
form that Jesus said it. He left off the "against your neighbor"
part because of possible abuse of the concept of "neighbor."
telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery.
I understand that part for the first time now. You aren't interested
in truth or justice where personal disputes are concerned.
You made that abundantly clear back this Spring, when Glenn corrected a distorted
comment you had made about me, and you didn't try to dispute his statement with him.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week.
Peter Nyikos
On 10/2/23 6:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/27/23 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
[big skip for focus]
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature. >>>>> Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for
Behe's teaching aid of a mousetrap.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every >>>> one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller's "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body,
in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential.
That's what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine.
And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose
80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe's actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them >>> was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X, >>> it doesn't swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap >>>> does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I'm glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky
nitpicks miss that point.
And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very >>>> numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not >>>> change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly
nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn't
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
Okay, I accept that Muller's interlocking complexity allows some
non-essential parts. However, it does not *require* them. Thus Behe's
(original) irreducible complexity is a subset of Muller's interlocking
complexity.
That's like saying that humans are a subset of Mammalia. Doesn't tell
us much about our fellow humans. [Although Jonathan Swift did try
in Gulliver's Fourth Voyage.]
More like saying that insects are a subset of Hexapoda.
Muller remains significant in that he showed how Behe's IC could evolve >> naturally, indeed that such systems might be expected to evolve.
By armchair theorists who don't look at such things but speculate in airy rhetorical
ways about them, minimizing their difficulty by the same one-size-fits-all generalities
that anti-ID zealots use to minimize the difficulty of OOL.
Find a system that could evolve more easily than the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum Minnich researched [see above], and work just as well or better, and which becomes
a bacterial flagellum by losing a bunch of parts.
Minnich never tried to find such a system.
Neither have you.
Muller at
least pointed a way past the apparent roadblocks.
Of course, he preceded Behe by decades, so he was not directly addressing >> Behe's claims, and he did not (as far as I know) mention the other ways >> that Behe's IC could evolve gradually.
For example, possible ambiguity
in what may be regarded as a "part", which Peter thinks he can ignore
now that he has made up a lampoon about it.
Not a lampoon. A challenge for you to fix your thinking about the definition of "part"
to where you realize that the relevant parts of Behe's serious examples are MOLECULES.
How is that relevant?
Do you know enough chemistry to know how different chemical bonds are from physical
attachments? Or chemical reactions are from physical ones?
I'm sure you know that molecules can be created, destroyed, and, most importantly, altered, right?
In particular, you know that such changes
of molecules are *essential* to the life of a cell?
To consider molecules as the relevant "parts" is absurd.
Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics,
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific
webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference.
What say you to that, Mark?
Why do you ask?? Did you forget to "skip for focus"?
What's the point of this snarky evasion? I am genuinely interested in the answer. If this
is the way search engines are to be in the AI-controlled future, it will be the nanny state
to end all nanny states.
I thought you were a *professional* computer scientist. Which better talk.origins
regular to turn to than you?
Okay. I suggest in the future you signal such changes in topic (e.g., "Drastic subject change coming").
I have never worked with or on AI; I have never (knowingly) used
ChatGPT; and I have not used Bing in many years. Whereof I cannot
speak, thereof I must be silent.
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
It's as if
these two have nothing better to do.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time. >>Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >>about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected. What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
4) At that stage, you tried to jump on the bandwagon and sought to
join up with me in battling Jillery. (Note: on several occasions since >then, you have tried to claim credit for spotting what Jillery had
done in that post but you didn't spot it, you just picked up on my
step by step explanation.)
5) I declined your offer, telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery and that I am more than capable
of fighting my own battles.
So follow your own advice and killfile him, and spare the froup your
asinine angst.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >> >as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >they can be ignored by those who don't care.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 05:09:10 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>the God of the Bible the alternative explanation.
wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:15:46?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:20:36 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:30:42?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:You dismiss science's exploration of OOL because it involves
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:49 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:40:41?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote: >> >> >>
<snip for focus>
You moan about others not engaging in meaningful discussion, yet youBill mistakenly named Burkhard, it was in fact Gary Hurd. And my response was not an admission, but intended as a brief dismissal.
respond to me with "a brief dismissal"; do you not see the double >> >> >> standard in that?
As I have pointed out on that other thread, when you struggle to
answer a simple question, it can be useful to reflect on why you so >> >> >> struggle.
We all make choices with limited time to make responses. As I briefly noted (and Bill affirmed), your question conflated different categories, and responding to that in detail was a rabbit hole I wasn't willing to go down at that moment.
speculation and sketchiness but make no attempt to explain you don't >> >> regard speculation and sketchiness as a issue with ID.
In the thread about Deamer's book, you moaned about people not being >> >> willing to discuss non-naturalistic explanations of origins; l offered >> >> to engage in such a discussion, but you have not taken up my offer.
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't
really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises
creates living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation (microevolution). God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is ultimately "supernatural".
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
OK, but be warned that this is long :)
How about you?
Thanks for the extended response.
As a Catholic, there are obviously some differences between us in the
detail of our religious beliefs, but nothing I think that really
affects what we are discussing here. One point I would perhaps make is
that by accepting an old earth view, you are effectively accepting
that Genesis cannot be taken literally. I do not have an issue with
that, but I think you have to be wary of not taking Genesis literally
yet quoting it to support your case.
Yes, the one thing that matters is, who is Christ to you?I believe Him to be the personification of the God from whom we came
and to whom we will return provided we follow the message He has given
us through Christ. To me, the important message of Genesis is mankind becoming aware of God and the recognition of good and evil with our
ability to choose between them. I think this was an early stage in
preparing us for the coming of Christ and our eventual reunification
with God.
It seems to me that the key difference between us is that you think
that "even the simplest life is beyond the reach of natural causes"
and more or less go on to dismiss natural causes completely. I do not
think that natural causes *on their own* are sufficient to explain
life but I see no reason for them not to be the mechanism by which our
bodies came into existence and continue to develop. Essentially (and
this is where I would diverge from many other posters here) I believe
that OOL and evolution are teleological in character. As I have said
before, I am heavily influenced by the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
that everything in the universe - inanimate as well as animate - is
gradually unifying towards a final "Omega Point" which he regards as
the fulfilment of Christ drawing everything into himself. [1]
Would this have the appearance of theistic evolution, but is instead a teleological drive embedded in matter itself? Or perhaps one type of theistic evolution?Not sure what you mean by "the appearance of theistic evolution" but I
guess it is one type of theistic evolution. I'm also not sure about a teleological drive embedded in matter itself, I'm more inclined to
think of it as external to but expressed through matter but I'm
open-minded about this. For example, I'm intrigued (though not
entirely convinced) by writers such as Phillip Goff who promotes panpsychism, the idea that all matter contains consciousness.
https://philipgoffphilosophy.com/popular-articles
I'm more inclined to think of the teleological drive as an external
force acting in a similar way to gravity acting on a river, causing it
to ever flow downwards towards the sea. Gravity does not determine the course of the river, the water simply responds to the terrain that it
meets; it will meander wide and slowly through soft earth but flow
narrow and fast through a rocky canyon - it responds directly to the environment that it encounters. I think it is the same with biological
life which may appear to evolve in a random way but it's not random;
it is life driven towards the Omega Point and just responding to the environment it meets on the way, no need for a designer planning its
course.
one of these on the basis of special revelation (i.e. the Bible) seems to be a matter of interpretation - which is why it's possible to be a YEC, OEC or TE and otherwise doctrinally mainstream.
I am a completely convinced dualist who believes that our *soul*,
whilst integrated with our body in this life, has a separate existence
of its own. Again, I am much taken with Teilhard's concept that "We
are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual
beings having a human experience."
Because of my focus on the soul, I don't find it at all helpful how
some Christian believers are so focused on our physical body - the
important thing to me is how it enables our soul to progress on its
journey towards that final destination, not how it biologically ended
up where it is. In my mind, evolution and OOL are just part of the
process that is taking us on our journey to the Omega Point and whilst
they are of great interest, their precise nature is not really all
that important in the overall scheme of things.
I will bring in here the point from the thread about David Deamer's
book as I think it's better to have a single overall discussion rather
than covering common ground in two different threads. In that thread,
I referred back to a review I did of Stephen Meyer's "God Hypothesis"
book where I struggled to get from a God fiddling about with molecules
and DNA to the theistic God, shared by Meyer and myself, with whom we
can have a personal relationship. You offered Special Revelation as a
solution. I don't really grasp that. I totally accept the concept of
Special Revelation but I don't see how that gets us from a God
twiddling with molecules and DNA to a personal relationship with God.
Are you saying you're okay with special revelation giving us a God with whom we can have a personal relationship, but not sure how that leads to special creation as opposed to theistic evolution or de Chardin's Omega Point teleology? Yes...favouring
The problem with Revelation is knowing whether or not it's genuine. If
some stranger came to you tomorrow and told you that God had told him
the Sun is going to explode next Tuesday and the explosion will
consume all bad people but good people will rise through the explosion
to heaven, I doubt if you would take him too seriously. We really need something beyond the person claiming Revelation to convince us that
what they are claiming is genuinely from God, we need at the very
least a detailed explanation of what they are claiming, not just some
simple message. That is why people here keep asking you to give them
some evidential argument for an intelligent designer, not a simple
claim that it's too complicated to have happened naturally. It is also
why I am so hung up on the question of how we get from a designer
twiddling about with molecules and DNA to that personal God.
========
==========================================
[1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard's writing is
almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
logic (in my words, not his) is:
- Everything that exists "wants" to join together. This is
demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
- As things join together, they create a more complex entity with its
own characteristics. For example, an atom of Oxygen and an atom of
Hydrogen on their own have individual characteristics. When two atoms
of Hydrogen join an atom of Oxygen, we get water, a more complex
material with completely different characteristics from its
constituent atoms. The same applies in many other areas - an engine,
wheels, a metal shell, a braking system and a seat combined together
make a motor car. That motor car is more complex than the individual
parts that have combined together and it has a new characteristic - it
becomes a mode of transport, something that none of the individual
parts could do on their own in their initial state. Teilhard argues
that the same principle applies to organic life; mammals are much more
complex than plants and have far more functionality.
I think those first two parts are probably not particularly
controversial with scientists, but Teilhard goes on to develop his
ideas further in a way that many scientists reject.
- He argues that *awareness* which we see right across the animal
kingdom, is a direct result of that complexity - inanimate objects
like rocks do not have any awareness (though they do contain
*potential* for awareness as that exists in very atom); plants have
limited awareness, responding for example to sunlight and night and
the seasons. Animals have a much higher level of awareness,
particularly humans.
- He then says that from awareness in general, we get to the
recognition of God which is unique to human beings. That is why he
thinks that "Man is not simply a new species of animal (as we are
still too often told). He represents, he initiates, a new species of
life."
- Teilhard sees the next stage of human development as what he terms
the "noosphere", involving more complex social networks leading to
increased human integration and greater human awareness. Like many
people, I see what is happening nowadays with things like the
Internet, social media, AI and globalisation as the fulfilment of what
Teilhard predicted the best part of a hundred years ago.
- Eventually that increased awareness will lead to the Omega Point
discussed above.
As I said above, Teilhard's writing is almost impenetrable for the
average reader. If you are interested in exploring his ideas further,
I thoroughly recommend two books by Louis M. Savary which go through
his ideas in a very understandable way:
"Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained"
Teilhard addressed his "The Phenomenon of Man" to the science
community and he focuses on scientific argument, staying away from
spiritual aspects although Savary does comment on these in his
explanatory book. He first put his ideas together in an essay in the
1930s but largely due to problems between him and Church authorities
[2], his book was only published posthumously in the year of his
death, 1955.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_2
"Teilhard de Chardin - The Divine Milieu Explained: A Spirituality for
the 21st Century"
As indicated in Savary's title, "The Divine Milieu" is a corresponding
book where Teilhard relates his scientific ideas to his religious
beliefs. Teilhard first wrote this book in the 1920s before The
Phenomenon of Man but again it was only published posthumously in
1957, two years after The Phenomenon of Man.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardin-Explained-Spirituality-Century/dp/0809144840/ref=sr_1_3
=================================================
[2] These problems were related to his theological ideas about Adam
and Eve and Original Sin, not his scientific ones though his
scientific knowledge did inform his theological arguments. I gave a
link to an explanation of these issues in a recent post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0QlFstdyGJM/m/raQyFEjAAAAJ
Thanks for the references. I've only come across de Chardin in passing; I'm now curious.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:21:00?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >> >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected.
Like most internet hellions, you have a way of riding roughshod over conditional
word, phrases, etc. In this case, "may be" is one possible explanation
of your despicable behavior during the years since the incident took place.
But I stand by what I wrote before that last sentence.
What you wrote below about that incident is one-sidedly
self-serving, to say the least.
What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
In fact, it made your reply look like you were agreeing with jillery about being in
a different universe than honest people.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
2.5) You complained about what jillery had done. Her rearranging of text was buried
so deep in a long reply to you, that I would never have found it if
you hadn't complained about it. The complaint may have been in the process
of a post you describe next.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
Please provide an url and/or the Subject line and/or date for this post, or any
of the earlier posts on this dispute.
4) At that stage,
... seeing that jillery continued her denial of any wrongdoing, my disinterested thirst for
justice was kindled. On another occasion, it was jillery herself who wasn't getting
justice from your fellow ethnic Irishman [1] named Sean [2], who had accused jillery
of "character assassination," but refused to answer jillery's request to know what
meaning he attached to that epithet.
I told jillery that I believed Sean owed her an explanation, and added that >of course, whether she collected on "the debt" was entirely between her and Sean.
At that, Sean rather hastily gave a definition that I had never seen before. >Unlike the Merriam-Webster definition, it carried no hint that the accusations >involved had to be false, or unsupported.
This answer was satisfactory for all three of us. Case closed.
[1] I say "ethnic Irishman" since IIRC he lived in Los Angeles.
[2] His surname escapes me at the moment, but I know it wasn't "Dillon."
Back to the incidents at hand:
you tried to jump on the bandwagon
There was no bandwagon against jillery.
You had been battling jillery alone, and then I battled jillery alone for a long time.
I took tremendous abuse from jillery, and even more from her ardent ally >Oxyaena. Others jumped on the pro-jillery bandwagon, though in a milder way.
The same Sean I wrote about above posted a reply to me [but NOT to jillery], saying
that he wished I would stop, and claimed that I was "only hurting" myself by continuing.
I replied that there were only two, diametrically opposite ways that I could >make sense of that comment: One, that jillery is so much more popular
than I am that continuing would just bring more abuse on my head;
two, that I am so much more respected than jillery that it would be hurting >myself to be spending so much time on a fruitless pursuit.
Sean, predictably, did not address that, but simply reiterated his wish
that I stop. [No mention of the possibility of jillery stopping.]
and sought to join up with me in battling Jillery.
I don't recall any such seeking. I was acting on my own love of justice and had no problem
with you having completely fallen silent during the long battle.
[Here I've snipped an utterly false, demeaning claim by you. Will explain
if anyone, even you, requests it.]
5) I declined your offer,
I don't recall ever having made one. The only post I recall that even remotely
resembled a declination of anything came AFTER I finally stopped.
Then you attacked me so strongly for having gone on for so long that I told you
that you seem to have elevated "Mind your own business"
to the Eleventh Commandment.
Since then, I've found out that there was no need for an eleventh for YOU, >since the commandment against bearing false witness against
your neighbor is one you have no use for, at least not in the
form that Jesus said it. He left off the "against your neighbor"
part because of possible abuse of the concept of "neighbor."
telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery.
I understand that part for the first time now. You aren't interested
in truth or justice where personal disputes are concerned.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >they can be ignored by those who don't care.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared[]
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >they can be ignored by those who don't care.
The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >>> >as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 12:42:41 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:21:00?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip for focus]
And all except Martin Harran have reciprocated from time to time.
Despite being a Roman Catholic, he has never figured out what Jesus meant >>> >about loving one's enemies.
[At least, that is true in my case: that may be because
he unilaterally decided to become my enemy after I struggled mightily
to show what an injustice jillery had committed against him once.
Martin may be the sort of whom it is said, "He can let no good deed go unpunished."]
Yet another falsehood needing corrected.
Like most internet hellions, you have a way of riding roughshod over conditional
word, phrases, etc. In this case, "may be" is one possible explanation
of your despicable behavior during the years since the incident took place. >>
But I stand by what I wrote before that last sentence.
What you wrote below about that incident is one-sidedly
self-serving, to say the least.
What actually happened was:
1) Jillery shuffled the parts of a post which made my reply to a
specific point look as if it was a reply to an entirely different
point which in turn made my reply look illogical if not silly.
In fact, it made your reply look like you were agreeing with jillery about being in
a different universe than honest people.
2) When I pointed this out, she initially denied it and tried to
divert attention by attacking me for using the word "snipping" to
describe what she had done as the original text was still preserved;
she made no attempt to explain why she had put the text out of
sequence.
2.5) You complained about what jillery had done. Her rearranging of text was buried
so deep in a long reply to you, that I would never have found it if
you hadn't complained about it. The complaint may have been in the process >>of a post you describe next.
3) I went through exactly what she had done, step by step.
Please provide an url and/or the Subject line and/or date for this post, or any
of the earlier posts on this dispute.
4) At that stage,
... seeing that jillery continued her denial of any wrongdoing, my disinterested thirst for
justice was kindled. On another occasion, it was jillery herself who wasn't getting
justice from your fellow ethnic Irishman [1] named Sean [2], who had accused jillery
of "character assassination," but refused to answer jillery's request to know what
meaning he attached to that epithet.
I told jillery that I believed Sean owed her an explanation, and added that >>of course, whether she collected on "the debt" was entirely between her and Sean.
At that, Sean rather hastily gave a definition that I had never seen before. >>Unlike the Merriam-Webster definition, it carried no hint that the accusations
involved had to be false, or unsupported.
This answer was satisfactory for all three of us. Case closed.
[1] I say "ethnic Irishman" since IIRC he lived in Los Angeles.
[2] His surname escapes me at the moment, but I know it wasn't "Dillon."
Back to the incidents at hand:
you tried to jump on the bandwagon
There was no bandwagon against jillery.
You had been battling jillery alone, and then I battled jillery alone for a long time.
I took tremendous abuse from jillery, and even more from her ardent ally >>Oxyaena. Others jumped on the pro-jillery bandwagon, though in a milder way. >>
The same Sean I wrote about above posted a reply to me [but NOT to jillery], saying
that he wished I would stop, and claimed that I was "only hurting" myself by continuing.
I replied that there were only two, diametrically opposite ways that I could >>make sense of that comment: One, that jillery is so much more popular
than I am that continuing would just bring more abuse on my head;
two, that I am so much more respected than jillery that it would be hurting >>myself to be spending so much time on a fruitless pursuit.
Sean, predictably, did not address that, but simply reiterated his wish >>that I stop. [No mention of the possibility of jillery stopping.]
and sought to join up with me in battling Jillery.
I don't recall any such seeking. I was acting on my own love of justice and had no problem
with you having completely fallen silent during the long battle.
[Here I've snipped an utterly false, demeaning claim by you. Will explain >>if anyone, even you, requests it.]
5) I declined your offer,
I don't recall ever having made one. The only post I recall that even remotely
resembled a declination of anything came AFTER I finally stopped.
Then you attacked me so strongly for having gone on for so long that I told you
that you seem to have elevated "Mind your own business"
to the Eleventh Commandment.
Since then, I've found out that there was no need for an eleventh for YOU, >>since the commandment against bearing false witness against
your neighbor is one you have no use for, at least not in the
form that Jesus said it. He left off the "against your neighbor"
part because of possible abuse of the concept of "neighbor."
telling you that I had no interest in what
was going on between you and Jillery.
I understand that part for the first time now. You aren't interested
in truth or justice where personal disputes are concerned.
OK, I forgot that your skill in using Google Groups, like many of your >skills, is considerably overstated so I'll take you through gently.
1) My original step-by-step of what Jillery did: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/892BgfNYH3Q/m/xnA2Yz6zAwAJ
2) After a series of posts trying to unsuccessfully engage me in a
joint attack on Jillery, you started a new thread to launch an attack
on Jillery using my identification of what she did and explicitly
naming me in the Subject of that thread. In that thread, I stated:
"Probably unnecessary but just to make it clear, I am not party to
this discussion, Peter has no authority to speak on my behalf and, to
be honest, I have no wish for him to drag me into any of his long
running battles with other people.
Peter, I told you before, I have no need or desire for you to take up
arms on my behalf, I am fully capable of and quite happy to fight my
own battles; I really wish you would refrain from trying to drag me
into yours."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/1VyTCUQBHVQ/m/Peiz3pRyAAAJ
3) You then started to attack me on the first thread accusing me of >"amoral-seeming standards" and stating "You never had a Catholic
education, did you?" >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/892BgfNYH3Q/m/tWcL2lzqAAAJ
That was the beginning of your continuing campaign to snipe at me
every time an opportunity arises and, as already noted, creating
opportunity where none exists.
[...]
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years. >>>
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do [a rather low bar to clear].
The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismissesFor those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life.
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
Peter Nyikos
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth andFor those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
............................
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where new species came from.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was
known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of history.
And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
Peter Nyikos
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >>> >as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of "egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as
illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
Adjusted subject title for the benefit of Kerr-Mudd:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared[]
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >> >they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
Sylpheed's not that obscure is it? (Main point is it's small). >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylpheed
Anyway, I agree a KF is the clear answer (esp WRT JTEM), but I'd hoped
for better from the regulars who might actually know stuff. I suppose lack
of snipping was an early Clue. Ah well.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >>>> >as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of >"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as
illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> was trolled by jillery in her reply (see above attribution line):
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared[]
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>> they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
Sylpheed's not that obscure is it? (Main point is it's small). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylpheed
Anyway, I agree a KF is the clear answer (esp WRT JTEM), but I'd hoped
for better from the regulars who might actually know stuff. I suppose lack
of snipping was an early Clue. Ah well.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >> >>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >> >>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of
"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as
illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >it's Killfile time.
I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate
it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >it's Killfile time.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I do indeed know that killfiles can't operate on egregious
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous >>>>> post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>>>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>>>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of >>"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as >>illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
examples automatically; killfiles rely on individual
evaluations to decide which posters are killfile candidates
and act on that. I don't know why you consider that to not
exemplify the use of intelligence.
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
this is not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that >evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >new species came from.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:37:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I do indeed know that killfiles can't operate on egregious
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>>>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous >>>>>> post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>>>>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>>>>they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of >>>"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as >>>illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
examples automatically; killfiles rely on individual
evaluations to decide which posters are killfile candidates
and act on that. I don't know why you consider that to not
exemplify the use of intelligence.
Since you mention it, there's no intelligence required to plugging
your ears. You're welcome.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:14:59 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:37:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Somehow I knew responding to you would be a mistake.
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:I do indeed know that killfiles can't operate on egregious
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>>>>> >> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous >>>>>>> post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>>>>>endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so
they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of >>>>"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something >>>>which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as >>>>illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam >>>>their lies about jillery.
examples automatically; killfiles rely on individual
evaluations to decide which posters are killfile candidates
and act on that. I don't know why you consider that to not
exemplify the use of intelligence.
Since you mention it, there's no intelligence required to plugging
your ears. You're welcome.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:16:04?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> was trolled by jillery in her reply (see above attribution line):
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the
same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous
post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
Thanks for that "almost": the comment that you snipped below
was the ONLY comment I made about you in the whole post to
which you are replying. Did you overlook that while you posted your
mindless noise?
As for "without basis," the torrents of abuse and deceit I suffered from you as I
posted explanations of what you did from every conceivable angle
have made me decide to refrain from "feeding the jillery troll" any further >than I already have.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Martin Harran, assuming you are
reading this.
I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate
it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >it's Killfile time.
I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate >it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >it's Killfile time.
So you either didn't read, or rejected, my comment regarding
the original purpose for which t.o was created. OK, sobeit.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 19:26:52 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >>reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate >>it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >>it's Killfile time.
1) I never engage with Jillery.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:55:50?AM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
I believe Him to be the personification of the God from whom we cameAs a Catholic, there are obviously some differences between us in the
detail of our religious beliefs, but nothing I think that really
affects what we are discussing here. One point I would perhaps make is
that by accepting an old earth view, you are effectively accepting
that Genesis cannot be taken literally. I do not have an issue with
that, but I think you have to be wary of not taking Genesis literally
yet quoting it to support your case.
Yes, the one thing that matters is, who is Christ to you?
and to whom we will return provided we follow the message He has given
us through Christ. To me, the important message of Genesis is mankind
becoming aware of God and the recognition of good and evil with our
ability to choose between them. I think this was an early stage in
preparing us for the coming of Christ and our eventual reunification
with God.
Peter alerted me to your responses here, which I missed - my apologies.
Thanks for that summary. As you may have guessed, my own position includes "penal substitutionary atonement"...and much more.
Not sure what you mean by "the appearance of theistic evolution" but I
guess it is one type of theistic evolution. I'm also not sure about a
teleological drive embedded in matter itself, I'm more inclined to
think of it as external to but expressed through matter but I'm
open-minded about this. For example, I'm intrigued (though not
entirely convinced) by writers such as Phillip Goff who promotes
panpsychism, the idea that all matter contains consciousness.
https://philipgoffphilosophy.com/popular-articles
I enjoyed this title: https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-crazy-but-its-also-most-probably-true
I'm more inclined to think of the teleological drive as an external
force acting in a similar way to gravity acting on a river, causing it
to ever flow downwards towards the sea. Gravity does not determine the
course of the river, the water simply responds to the terrain that it
meets; it will meander wide and slowly through soft earth but flow
narrow and fast through a rocky canyon - it responds directly to the
environment that it encounters. I think it is the same with biological
life which may appear to evolve in a random way but it's not random;
it is life driven towards the Omega Point and just responding to the
environment it meets on the way, no need for a designer planning its
course.
Appreciate the distinction. From my understanding, panpsychism would seem to locate any teleology down to the particle level.
I wonder if mainstream science will begin to wonder about "naturalistic teleology" as we discover more and more complexity and integration in cells and organisms.
correctly. For example: https://anglican.ink/2018/04/02/csi-calvary-the-compelling-case-for-the-resurrection/The problem with Revelation is knowing whether or not it's genuine. If
some stranger came to you tomorrow and told you that God had told him
the Sun is going to explode next Tuesday and the explosion will
consume all bad people but good people will rise through the explosion
to heaven, I doubt if you would take him too seriously. We really need
something beyond the person claiming Revelation to convince us that
what they are claiming is genuinely from God, we need at the very
least a detailed explanation of what they are claiming, not just some
simple message. That is why people here keep asking you to give them
some evidential argument for an intelligent designer, not a simple
claim that it's too complicated to have happened naturally. It is also
why I am so hung up on the question of how we get from a designer
twiddling about with molecules and DNA to that personal God.
IMO, a strong evidential argument for the resurrection of Christ is circumstantial. And such evidence, though in a different category to the scientific variety, is used as a basis for criminal convictions, which attests to its validity when used
The logic I'm proposing is this: the more that naturalistic explanations prove to be inadequate (by whatever measure may be agreed upon), the more warranted becomes consideration of supernational explanation (though I stress, this is not the onlywarrant by any means).
Which supernatural explanation then? That's an entirely different conversation around theology, a personal assessment of comparative religion, etc etc.
Having said that, I see the hand of a personal creator in the world. The Bible draws attention to this many times, e.g.:
Three things are too wonderful for me;
four I do not understand:
the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a virgin.
(Proverbs 30:18-19)
And a personal favourite: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/5WGdXdzqrAQ/m/cx9B0OKTBQAJ
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:12:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
this is not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
How is the above "evidence of inteligent design"? You *still* don't
say.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >> planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >> evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
As written, your words imply G&E supported ID. They did not. To the contrary, both lamented publicly, loudly and often how IDers regularly quotemined them.
And since you acknowledge 'they were dedicated to "following the
evidence," to wherever, it took them', perhaps you should take more
seriously their rejection of IDer's arguments.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that >> evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >> new species came from.
You say that like it's a Good Thing(c). More to the point, I am
hard-pressed to recall where IDers searched for answers to anything, nevermind found any.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
There's a difference between "explain" and "explain away". The latter
is what IDers do.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 19:26:52 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >>reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate >>it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >>it's Killfile time.
1) I never engage with Jillery.
2) I rarely interact with Nyikos except when he launches an unprovoked
attack on me and I make no apology for exposing the lies and bullshit
about me that he posts when he does that.
3) This thread is actually a good example of that. I was involved in a
civil and interesting discussion with Mark and others about Tour's
challenge and posted what I considered to be "informative points about >Origins" including a lengthy explanatory one about Teilhard de
Chardin's related views. The "bickering" started when Nyikos threw in
his stupid unprovoked claim that "Harran's Teilhard de Chardin fan
club membership is not a true gauge of his actual beliefs."
4) Regarding your earlier request for people to learn to snip, I think
you will find that I am one of the better ones at that.
2) I rarely interact with Nyikos except when he launches an unprovoked >attack on me and I make no apology for exposing the lies and bullshit
about me that he posts when he does that.
That's what Kerr-Mudd calls pig wrestling.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/From that page:
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:33:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:15:03 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
2) I rarely interact with Nyikos except when he launches an unprovoked
attack on me and I make no apology for exposing the lies and bullshit
about me that he posts when he does that.
That's what Kerr-Mudd calls pig wrestling.
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
[snipped more infighting revived, I'm not getting involved]
I hereby resolve not to post any more about this.
Your argument seems to be that there is no gain for me in challenging
lies and bullshit by people like Nyikos. I'd turn that back on you and
ask what disadvantage there is to me doing so?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:56:05 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
Your argument seems to be that there is no gain for me in challengingThe more you engage in that interpersonal crap, the lesser my opinion of you.
lies and bullshit by people like Nyikos. I'd turn that back on you and
ask what disadvantage there is to me doing so?
There's no need for that to matter to you the least little bit. But you asked.
I am and have been guilty of railing against people. I acknowledge that no matter how right and just my cause, it likely hurts me more than them. That's one reason I try to avoid it. The other is it hurts the group.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:33:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:15:03 +0100, Martin Harran<[email protected]> wrote:
2) I rarely interact with Nyikos except when he launches an unprovoked >attack on me and I make no apology for exposing the lies and bullshit >about me that he posts when he does that.
That's what Kerr-Mudd calls pig wrestling.
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
[snipped more infighting revived, I'm not getting involved]
I hereby resolve not to post any more about this.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:33:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:15:03 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
2) I rarely interact with Nyikos except when he launches an unprovoked
attack on me and I make no apology for exposing the lies and bullshit
about me that he posts when he does that.
That's what Kerr-Mudd calls pig wrestling.
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
[snipped more infighting revived, I'm not getting involved]
I hereby resolve not to post any more about this.
I have been extremely careful to form
my opinions on people only on my direct experience or on evidenced
claims but even in regard to the latter, I err on the side of caution
unless I have heard both sides of the story.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about other people.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:56:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
Your argument seems to be that there is no gain for me in challenging
lies and bullshit by people like Nyikos. I'd turn that back on you and
ask what disadvantage there is to me doing so?
The more you engage in that interpersonal crap, the lesser my opinion of you. >There's no need for that to matter to you the least little bit. But you asked.
I am and have been guilty of railing against people.
I acknowledge that no
matter how right and just my cause, it likely hurts me more than them.
That's one reason I try to avoid it. The other is it hurts the group.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>>>>> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed >>>>>> as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous >>>>> post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for
endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so >>>> they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of
"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as
illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then it's Killfile time.
There are two posters who I would guess are responsible for somewhere
in the order of 90% of the animosity, if not sheer vitriol, that we
get here. I do not engage at all with one of those posters. In regard
to the other poster, I generally only respond to unprovoked attacks he
makes on my character, particularly my religious beliefs, with
bullshit and lies that are readily exposed for what they are. [1]
Somehow that makes me the one who is hurting the group. Fair enough; I
may not like the rule, I may not even understand the rule, but at
least I am now aware of the rule.
[1] I admit that I occasionally respond when he attacks other people
but that doesn't seem to upset other posters so much, it's really only
when I respond to attacks on myself.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
On 2023-10-10 18:26:52 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:18:46 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:34:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't care whose wrong or right. I didn't select anyone in particular to >> reply to, I just don't want to wade through the bickering. I'd appreciate
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:14:08 -0400The express purpose of t.o at the time it was created (sorry
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> trolled:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:18:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another example where Harran lies about jillery while at the >>>>>>>> same time falling for PeeWee Peter's lies about jillery.
There was only one statement by me about you below that can be construed
as being false. Even that is a huge stretch:
To the contrary, almost every comment about jillery in your previous >>>>>> post is factually incorrect asserted without basis.
<snip remaining GIGO>
Anyone here interested in Origins, or is this just another group for >>>>> endless bickering? At least let people know which threads are for that so
they can be ignored by those who don't care.
'bout that...) was to lure the anti-science posters away
from the serious science sites. Given that, I'd have to say
that its initial raison d'etre *was* to generate what you
call "bickering".
The interpersonal flamewars are a natural, and predictable,
result of that. I've never heard of your cited newsreader
(Sylpheed), but if it incorporates a killfile capability you
might want to avail yourself of that to screen out the more
egregious examples.
As you well know, killfiles are incapable of filtering on the basis of
"egregious examples". To do that requires intelligence, something
which users of killfiles apparently are unwilling to exercise, as
illustrated in this case by Kerr-Mudd complaining to jillery instead
of replying to Harran and/or Nyikos, both of whom continue to spam
their lies about jillery.
it if all 3 of you would post informative points about Origins. If not then >> it's Killfile time.
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeable
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can
then use your kill file judiciously.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there >> >>> are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the >> >>> risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with
what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively
the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there >> >>> are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the >> >>> risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with
what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively
the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there >>> are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the >>> risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,And here's an unsolicited and fresh example: ******************************************
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts >about me.
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> *******************************************
because of what somebody else has said about them?
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog
must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or
not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there >> >>> are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in
such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the >> >>> risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with
what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively
the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It. >> >>> >
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog >> >>> must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or >> >>> not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in >> >>> such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with >what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively >the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
Athel has said before that he doesn't read my posts and I have no
reason to disbelieve him so I find it kind of hard to figure out how I
am supposed to have influenced him!
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 11:31:06?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It. >> >> >>> >
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog >> >> >>> must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or >> >> >>> not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there
are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in >> >> >>> such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the
risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with
what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively
the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
Athel has said before that he doesn't read my posts and I have no
reason to disbelieve him so I find it kind of hard to figure out how I
am supposed to have influenced him!
It's a no-brainer: Athel may have read many replies to you
by others whose posts he does read regularly. Some may have
been heavily redacted to make the repliers look like their case is
stronger than it is.
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can
then use your kill file judiciously.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >yup.Beasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:06:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:46:01 -0400, jillery <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettAnd here's an unsolicited and fresh example:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:05?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:51:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
It's a quote (who wrote it first is for others to worry about)From that page:
Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It. >>> >>> >
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/
"It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog >>> >>> must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or >>> >>> not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there >>> >>> are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in >>> >>> such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the >>> >>> risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast."
Look, we all get the concept of wanting to "defend our honor".
But now it's time to bypass emotion and use your head, and so I ask a key question.
Is there even a single case, where you have a lesser opinion of anyone on talk.origins
because of what somebody else has said about them? I don't want an answer posted.
But it should inform you of the actual necessity for anyone to defend their honor.
Your expressed want notwithstanding, I know of several posters who,
based on their posts, believe the lies and mindless spam Harran posts
about me.
******************************************
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Endless Bickering (was: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
*******************************************
Just for clarity's sake, consider the distinction between agreeing with >>what X has to say about Y as you have independently reached effectively
the same conclusion on your own, and merely accepting what X has to
say about Y based on trust in Y. That is context for what I wrote above
as to the bit ending with
because of what somebody else has said about them?
I thought the word *because* covered this. I don't dispute that multiple people
appear to share similar opinions. Having reached similar ones all by my lonesome,
I have no reason to doubt they did likewise. I shall now disengage. Have fun.
Athel has said before that he doesn't read my posts and I have no
reason to disbelieve him so I find it kind of hard to figure out how I
am supposed to have influenced him!
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >>> don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>>>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>>>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>>>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>>>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>>>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>>>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>>>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>>>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>>>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>>>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>>>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>>>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>>>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>>>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>>>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>>>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>>>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>>>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>>>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>>>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>>>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>>>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>>>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>>>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>>>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>>>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>>>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>>>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do >>> [a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
............................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of >> inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that >> evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >> new species came from.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
[email protected] wrote:life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >>>> don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>>>>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>>>>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>>>>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>>>>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>>>>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>>>>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of >>>>>> life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>>>>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why >>>>>> would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>>>>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>>>>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>>>>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>>>>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>>>>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>>>>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>>>>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>>>>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>>>>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>>>>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>>>>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>>>>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>>>>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>>>>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>>>>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>>>>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>>>>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>>>>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>>>>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to............................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap >>> before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of >>> inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >>> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>> new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most >cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point. >https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with >many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in >DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information >within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the >past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a >state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance >from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to >find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go >extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved >into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public >circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there are >theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in >cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind >universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several >(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma" >there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this is
the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of >massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and >repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had
to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could >random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random
mutations and natural selection
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >>> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
.This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >> this is............................
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap >> before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been. in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:50:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
Something is wrong. brogers wrote nothing below. He's not even
involved in this thread, so not sure how his nic appears below.
Instead, you replied to your own post, which was a reply to Nyikos,
which was a reply to MarkE.
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>>>>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>>>>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>>>>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>>>>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>>>>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>>>>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>>>>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to............................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>> this is
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most >cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point. >https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with >many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in >DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a >unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to >such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information >within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the >past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been. >in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a >state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance >from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to >find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go >extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out. >What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved >into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public >circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in >cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind >universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did >a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several >(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma" >there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or >lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this is >the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of >massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan >and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and >repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could >random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random >mutations and natural selection
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
--
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of
history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to notice the NG title.
then use your kill file judiciously.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >yup.Beasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who >>>> post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that >>>
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who >>>> post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >>> yup.Beasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to >>> notice the NG title.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can >>>> then use your kill file judiciously.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Where’s “howard hershey”?
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The origin of life is one case in point. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Like a city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in DNA. This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a
state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would include the numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there are theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several (5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma" there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this
is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had
to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random
mutations and natural selection
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
[email protected] wrote:............................
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give meThis is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark
whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that
Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to
answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The
issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and
never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>>>>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>>>>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current
origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that
there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs,
so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long >>>>>> time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists
today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>>>>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>>>>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded >>>>>> onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last
billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever
gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for
them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how
to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>>>>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them >>>>>> that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion
years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists
like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of
life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>>>>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the
creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>>>>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion
years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth
"models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created
on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of
the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I,
Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an
early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still
running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had
all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a
verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through
"ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an
assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's
challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests
that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with
the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life. The
author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his
religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for
his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of
scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the idea of
"God-of-the-gaps" denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author
contends that creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling
their beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this
evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing
the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the
use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word
"denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value
the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no
attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the
gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where
they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or
where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with
many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in
DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a
state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there
are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several (5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma" there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this is
the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had
to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random
mutations and natural selection
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust
bowl of
history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this
observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
On 2023-10-12 18:56:36 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200Oh my gosh, yes. I forgot about him, but it's safe to ignore everyting
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeablegot that
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
he posts.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 11:06:07?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:50:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
Something is wrong. brogers wrote nothing below. He's not even
involved in this thread, so not sure how his nic appears below.
Instead, you replied to your own post, which was a reply to Nyikos,
which was a reply to MarkE.
He has somehow mucked up the attributions. In fact, I did write the paragraph
"You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as to how or where new species came from."
but somehow he clipped out a ">" and so it looks like he wrote that.
of life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >> >>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >> >>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >> >>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >> >>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >> >>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >> >>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >> >>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >> >>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >> >>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >> >>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >> >>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >> >>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >> >>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >> >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >> >>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin
--You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to............................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >> >>> this is
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >> >>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >> >>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >> >>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >> >>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with >> >many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >> >carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in >> >DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the >> >past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been. >> >in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a
state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to >> >find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved >> >into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public
circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in
cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind >> >universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >> >fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several >> >(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or >> >lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >> >careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this is >> >the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan >> >and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and >> >repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >> >alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >> >to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could
random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random
mutations and natural selection
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of
history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
.This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is............................
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap >>>> before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >>>> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>>> new species came from.
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most >> cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
They may base their assertion of ID based on scientific data, but they don't do it scientifically.
To do it scientifically, they would be proposing ways to test both the truth of their assertion,
and test its further implications. Above you disclaim doing that. You call it designed, wipe
off your hands, and say you're done. That's the opposite of science.
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with
many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in
DNA.
These strange things you say. Who do you imagine thought a cell was some simple
bag of jelly-like substance.
Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts. Nice guy by the way. The first edition of that
textbook was written 40 years ago. I don't recall anywhere in it where it says the cell
is a bag of jelly-like substances. That would shorten it considerably from the 1216
pages in my copy of the 2nd edition. You should read it.
It discusses DNA, and DNA repair. Based on what you write below, it would do you
good to study a competent presentation of not only what happens,
in greater molecular detail. Things that seem so mysterious and magical to you might
seem less so if you knew more about the chemistry involved and how it's accomplished.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
And do you understand anything about how that is accomplished? Do you understand
the relationship between competitive binding energy of nucleotides and the rate constant
to tune up the fidelity? What about the exonuclease editing?
You see, you toss out a number that amazes you, but I don't think you actually understand
what's going on. And you are talking to people who do. Some of use were around when
the details were being worked out. Some of us have shared meals with the people who
did the work. One of us is, I'm pretty sure, (was) on a first name basis with some of the
principals. That itself isn't such a big deal but it goes as part of the fact that some of
us have a much deeper understanding of DNA replication and repair than you do. You
ooh and aah at some numbers but it's clear you don't actually understand what's going
on under the hood. Then you try to lecture us about how it must be designed.
You simply haven't begun to understand how things work well enough to be able to see
why they look like they evolved. And you don't seem willing to put in the effort to learn
a great deal more about how organic chemistry works, how catalysis works, how enzymes
work, how biopolymers behave, and what exists in molecular natural history. It is a great
deal of work, no doubt. It takes most people about 5 years to work their way through all
of the coursework that can give you perspective on the whole thing. A savant might do
it faster but I rather think some of these things need to stew awhile.
..DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the
past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been. >> in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a
state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance >> from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to
find. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go >> extinct. It should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved >> into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
"Living fossils" are a bit of a myth. Things that look pretty similar to a fossil from
the outside often have skeletal differences. There are no fossil coelacanths whose
skeletons match modern ones. And their DNA changes about as fast as that of any other vertebrate.
There's a great many things you think you know that ain't so. It's like you thinking
that the Nasca Lines can only be seen from the air when they can be seen from local hillsides.
you time and again. And then you call them Nazae lines in Porto Rica.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:50:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
Something is wrong. brogers wrote nothing below. He's not even
involved in this thread, so not sure how his nic appears below.
Instead, you replied to your own post, which was a reply to Nyikos,
which was a reply to MarkE.
life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark whom I >>>>> don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that Tour's >>>>>>> origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to answer his >>>>>>> questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The issue >>>>>>> has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and never >>>>>>> could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to support >>>>>>> Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't want >>>>>>> to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that there >>>>>>> is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very long time >>>>>>> ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists today. >>>>>>> What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't apply to >>>>>>> what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 billion >>>>>>> years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was seeded onto >>>>>>> this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever gotten the >>>>>>> promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for them to >>>>>>> have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how to do >>>>>>> any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean what >>>>>>> the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told them that >>>>>>> what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion years old >>>>>>> for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists like >>>>>>> Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of life by >>>>>>> claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe IDiots >>>>>>> can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the creation of >>>>>>> various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land vertebrates. >>>>>>> Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion years >>>>>>> ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth "models" >>>>>>> have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created on the >>>>>>> 4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >>>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to............................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no attempt to identify.
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap >>>> before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >>>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >>>> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>>> new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most >> cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with
many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in
DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to
such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the
past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been. >> in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a
state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance >>from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to
find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved >> into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in public
circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, there are >> theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information in
cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and blind >> universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So, why did >> a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these several >> (5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central dogma" >> there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this is
the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >> alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >> to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could
random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise through random
mutations and natural selection
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of
history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
...........................This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is............................
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as >>> to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
They may base their assertion of ID based on scientific data, but they don't do it scientifically.
To do it scientifically, they would be proposing ways to test both the truth of their assertion,
and test its further implications. Above you disclaim doing that. You call it designed, wipe
off your hands, and say you're done. That's the opposite of science.
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for example.
who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set out
to re-define Paley's
evidences in such a way as to get rid of Paley God. I question whether
or not we would
know anything of Darwin had Paley not published his works. Like it or
not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
It's no different in many respects, both ID and evolution are historical sciences,
biologist can no go back into the past and theorize, but cannot observe,
so as
Darwin was aware of this fact, and so he invented this concept "the
present is
the key to the past". There is no way to actively test evolution by the
same
methodology as used by Pasteur and Redi who falsified spontaneous generation.
By the same methodology evolution is non falsifiable. You cannot test
it. Scientist
have searched for 150+ years for intermediates between species, finding
very few
which which could be classified as intermediates. When 99% of all
species became
extinct, there is no way to verify that any so called intermediate
species that
survived left offspring. So, we have theory, followed by the search for evidence to
support this theory. Without observation who's to say, given the desire
for evidence,
that what's found is not just the "best in field". Archaeopteryx for example, a organism
isolated in the fossil record, with no known ancestors or intermediate offspring.
Again Gould and Eldredge in trying to conform evolution with the fossil record
reenlisted abrupt appearance, stasis and disappearance of most species.
This is
observed, but the few that did not disappear are not observed.
To start with a hypothesis or theory, then initiate search programs to
find supporting
evidence, is this science?
It's possible to "prove" almost anything by such methods. I will admit,
this also
describes intelligent deign. But if supporting evidence is found, it
should suffice.
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with >> many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in >> DNA.
These strange things you say. Who do you imagine thought a cell was some simple
bag of jelly-like substance.
My words to describe what Darwin thought about the cell. He had no idea
as to how
complex the cell actually is.
I went downstairs and grabbed my copy of The Molecular
Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts. Nice guy by the way. The first edition of that
textbook was written 40 years ago. I don't recall anywhere in it where it says the cell
is a bag of jelly-like substances. That would shorten it considerably from the 1216
pages in my copy of the 2nd edition. You should read it.
It discusses DNA, and DNA repair. Based on what you write below, it would do you
good to study a competent presentation of not only what happens,
I provided reference which somehow failed which went into considerable detail.
but how it happens
in greater molecular detail. Things that seem so mysterious and magical to you might
seem less so if you knew more about the chemistry involved and how it's accomplished.
There is something that comes across as curious, the fact that so few
people know anything
about this topic, and virtually nothing on TO. Also this proofreading
and repair mechanism
was noted in the 1930's and again in 1940, but it came to nothing at the time - why?
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to >> such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
And do you understand anything about how that is accomplished? Do you understand
the relationship between competitive binding energy of nucleotides and the rate constant
to tune up the fidelity? What about the exonuclease editing?
You see, you toss out a number that amazes you, but I don't think you actually understand
what's going on. And you are talking to people who do. Some of use were around when
the details were being worked out. Some of us have shared meals with the people who
did the work. One of us is, I'm pretty sure, (was) on a first name basis with some of the
principals. That itself isn't such a big deal but it goes as part of the fact that some of
us have a much deeper understanding of DNA replication and repair than you do. You
ooh and aah at some numbers but it's clear you don't actually understand what's going
on under the hood. Then you try to lecture us about how it must be designed.
You simply haven't begun to understand how things work well enough to be able to see
why they look like they evolved. And you don't seem willing to put in the effort to learn
a great deal more about how organic chemistry works, how catalysis works, how enzymes
work, how biopolymers behave, and what exists in molecular natural history. It is a great
deal of work, no doubt. It takes most people about 5 years to work their way through all
of the coursework that can give you perspective on the whole thing. A savant might do
it faster but I rather think some of these things need to stew awhile.
I asked questions which were ignored.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the >> past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a >> state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to >> find. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
"Living fossils" are a bit of a myth. Things that look pretty similar to a fossil from..
the outside often have skeletal differences. There are no fossil coelacanths whose
skeletons match modern ones. And their DNA changes about as fast as that of
any other vertebrate.
These 3 article disagrees with you.
https://theconversation.com/from-coelacanths-to-crinoids-these-9-living-fossils-havent-changed-in-millions-of-years-188886
..
https://www.treehugger.com/animals-that-are-living-fossils-4869302
.. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/take-a-tour-of-these-incredible-living-fossils
There's a great many things you think you know that ain't so. It's like you thinking
that the Nasca Lines can only be seen from the air when they can be seen from
local hillsides.
This would be from a distance. But as I recall people who designed these forms could not see their handy work as they labored. Even if the figures could be observed from hill sides, so what, no one understands what purpose these figures served.
y served. You were given references with photos. But people have to correct
you time and again. And then you call them Nazae lines in Porto Rica.
You are wrong, I wrote about nothing about Nazca lines in Porto Rica, I
did,
years ago, discuss the stone spheres, of various sizes in Porto Rica.
The Nazca
lines, I also discussed, in the distant past, these Nazca figures are in
a desert
in Peru, not Porto Rica. I did not make those mistake.
BTW, after 35 years I was forcible retired after my heart problems and
open heart
surgery in a nursing home - of all places. It took 4 months to recover.
Then the
president of the company, requested that I visit his office. He offered
my old job
back, not as a salaried employee: as a contractor with a bit more
income, but no,
not any - zero benefits. So TO comes last - Employment comes first.
On 2023-10-13 02:50:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in
most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Do you think you're telling us something we don't know? It has been understood for at least one hundred years that the cell is not a simple jelly-like substance. Can you cite a single textbook since 1945 that
says that it is?
Like a city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past". And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been. in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of _stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
How curious, therefore, that Gould and Eldridge did not become intelligent-design crackpots!
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information
in cells originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these >> several (5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma" there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >> careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, if this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
It strongly implies that you haven't given any serious thought to how
science progresses. "I don't understand, so God must have done it" won't convince anyone who isn't convinced already.
purpose, plan and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >> alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >> to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could
random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise (corrections)through random
mutations and natural selection
Have you read any of the papers written by real scientists who study
exactly these questions? Which ones? What did you find unconvincing?
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
[email protected] wrote:............................
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not giveThis is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is
me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark
whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that >>>>>>> Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to
answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The >>>>>>> issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and >>>>>>> never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to
support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't >>>>>>> want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current
origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that >>>>>>> there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, >>>>>>> so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very
long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists >>>>>>> today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't
apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3
billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was
seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for
billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last
billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever
gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for
them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how >>>>>>> to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean >>>>>>> what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told
them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and
positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion
years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists >>>>>>> like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of
life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe
IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the
creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land
vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion >>>>>>> years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth
"models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created >>>>>>> on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of
the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I,
Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an
early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still
running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had
all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a
verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through
"ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >>>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an >>>>>> assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's
challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests
that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with
the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life. The
author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his
religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence
for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of
scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the idea
of "God-of-the-gaps" denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author
contends that creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling
their beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this
evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing
the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the
use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word
"denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value
the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no
attempt to identify.
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example:
the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >>>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where
they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or
where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in
order to support your religious beliefs?
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has always been with IDiots.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the fossil
record, just so they can claim that their designer did it. IDiots just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. The whole point
of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that his designer did it.
Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to do any IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is responsible for the origin of life.
The fact is that Tour never wanted to fill the origin of life gap with
his designer. He is only using it like creationists have used it from
the beginning. All it is supposed to do is allow creationists to wallow
in the denial. Nothing positive is supposed to come out of the
stupidity because the Biblical creationists never wanted to fill the gap
with their god.
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that because
the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam Top Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they must have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life was #3 of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions of years after the fine tuning
of our solar system (#2) and over 8 billion years after the Big Bang
(#1). Billions of years would pass after the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved among the microorganism that had evolved after
the origin of life. The Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps
like Meyer, occurred within a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. The other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills
the Top Six gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE to
tell you how his god fills the origin of life gap.
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in
most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city
with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information
in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these
several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >> careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this
is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and >> repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the
only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there >> had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and
how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil
record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust
bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this >>>> observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:In that case, of what possible relevance is it? One might as
On 2023-10-13 02:50:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ � ]
� You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in
most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Do you think you're telling us something we don't know? It has been
understood for at least one hundred years that the cell is not a simple
jelly-like substance. Can you cite a single textbook since 1945 that
says that it is?
Of course, you must realize I was not in reference to what was known
after 1945, but rather 145 years or so ago.
Like a city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >>> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of� information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past". And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been. in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of _stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden >>> disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
How curious, therefore, that Gould and Eldridge did not become
intelligent-design crackpots!
Why the insult!?? Do you believe that I thought that they came to
accept intelligent
design? No, however they did in fact, try to conform evolution to fit
the fossil record.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are theories and hypothesis as to� how life started or� where information
in cells originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >>> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >>> fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these >>> several (5) proofreading� and repair� mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma" there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of� fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >>> careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, if this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of� random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
It strongly implies that you haven't given any serious thought to how
science progresses. "I don't understand, so God must have done it" won't
convince anyone who isn't convinced already.
No, how did _nature_ with its mindless, purposeless, careless world >accidentally
originate this highly complex proofreading and repair protein machines.
You have no idea as to what steps or what procedures accomplished this. As >one person stated, I do know, how it happened - it evolved. Really, why
and how??
But then, you just ignore everything. Obviously _you_ have no answers or >explanation
You just trust other people somehow have the answers. They do not - only >guesses,
hypothesis and theories.
�purpose, plan and deliberate design.� There's no reason to think these proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >>> alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >>> to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could
random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise (corrections)through random
mutations and natural selection
Have you read any of the papers written by real scientists who study
exactly these questions? Which ones? What did you find unconvincing?
The references I provided were by scientist. What I found that these >scientist went
into great detain to explain how the 5 proofreading and repair
mechanisms work. But
almost nothing, as to how these functions originated. No one knows how
life itself got
started, the same goes for the vast amounts of information in the DNA of
the most basic
cell. Here we have a catch 22 situation. There is no life without
information (DNA)
and there is no DNA without life. Redi and Pasteur have, yet to be
_proven_ wrong.
There is not a known, observed or proven case where life came from
non-life. Of
course, there is hope, faith and trust that science will provide the
answer and this
gives rise to hypothesis and numerous theories as to how life started. >However, there is positive observed and undeniable evidence of life from >life.
And not a single observed exception to Pasteur rule. The question is
when and how
and why did DNA proofreading an repair come about. No one knows!
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-13 02:50:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most >>> cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Do you think you're telling us something we don't know? It has been
understood for at least one hundred years that the cell is not a simple
jelly-like substance. Can you cite a single textbook since 1945 that
says that it is?
Of course, you must realize I was not in reference to what was known
after 1945, but rather 145 years or so ago.
RonO wrote:.......
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
[email protected] wrote:............................
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give >>>>> me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark >>>>> whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that >>>>>>> Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to
answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. The >>>>>>> issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up and >>>>>>> never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that his >>>>>>> god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't >>>>>>> want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current >>>>>>> origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that >>>>>>> there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious beliefs, >>>>>>> so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists >>>>>>> today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't
apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was
seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last
billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they started >>>>>>> running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever
gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for >>>>>>> them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know how >>>>>>> to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean >>>>>>> what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity when he >>>>>>> claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when creationists >>>>>>> like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of >>>>>>> life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe >>>>>>> IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the
creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land
vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion >>>>>>> years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth >>>>>>> "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created >>>>>>> on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour make >>>>>>> that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of >>>>> the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, >>>>> Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an >>>>>> early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still
running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've had >>>>> all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a
verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through >>>>> "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >>>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make an >>>>>> assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's
challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests >>>>>> that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with >>>>>> the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life. The
author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his
religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence >>>>>> for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of >>>>>> scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the idea >>>>>> of "God-of-the-gaps" denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author >>>>>> contends that creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling >>>>>> their beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this
evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing >>>>>> the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the >>>>>> use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the word >>>>> "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face value >>>>> the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no
attempt to identify.
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example:
the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >>>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it >>>> took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where
they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or >>>> where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as
to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in order to support your religious beliefs?
You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or dogma in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the fossil record, just so they can claim that their designer did it. IDiots just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. The whole point
of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that his designer did it.
Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to do any IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is responsible for the origin of life.
The fact is that Tour never wanted to fill the origin of life gap with
his designer. He is only using it like creationists have used it from
the beginning. All it is supposed to do is allow creationists to wallow in the denial. Nothing positive is supposed to come out of the
stupidity because the Biblical creationists never wanted to fill the gap with their god.
I know nothing about a Tour.
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam Top Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they must have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life was #3 of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions of years after the fine tuning
of our solar system (#2) and over 8 billion years after the Big Bang
(#1). Billions of years would pass after the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved among the microorganism that had evolved after
the origin of life. The Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer, occurred within a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. The other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills the Top Six gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE to
tell you how his god fills the origin of life gap.
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called "top six". The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support for
Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so dangerous' is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no purpose no evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and kills it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the deer,
just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this Darwinist world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals,
apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly accepted basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge allows an all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist admits his "crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad, the man desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has
his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard is he wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver. Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in
most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city
with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information >> within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule. >>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information
in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >> fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these
several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or >> lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >> careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this
is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of >> massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose, plan >> and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading and >> repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the
only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there
had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and >> how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it is
obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil
record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust
bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this
observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
RonO wrote:
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth.� It is just
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has
always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:01:08â¯PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[ … ]
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good
bad,> there is right and wrong according to the laws given by thelawgiver.> Consider Stalin an atheist
And so in this country, we have a right to protect ourselves [because
of the Second Amendment]," Graham observed. "So you have a right to
have a gun and protect yourself. In Israel, it's difficult to get a gun permit."
"But as far as having an assault rifle in your home or a shotgun or a
hunting rifle, these things are very difficult," he continued. "And you
would think that Israel would require anyone living close to the border
of Gaza to have weapons in their home and maybe even be forced to carry
those weapons. And I just, for the life of me, I can't understand what happened."
who had millions of people killed. Was he> wrong - why?
Sure Stalin was wrong to kill millions, as was the rapist in your hypothetical trial. I'm an atheist, and I have no trouble telling wrong
from right.
Religion adds nothing useful to debates on morality
- indeed lots of religious people differ among themselves about what
is right or wrong. Most normal people have a set of moral sentiments,
derived from our long evolutionary history as cooperative, social
primates. Some people use religion to explain why they have the moral sentimetns they do; some people use secular philosophy to construct
moral systems that justify the moral sentiments they have. Some people
look at mass murder and rape and other bad deed and just naturally say
"Oh, that;s awful." Atheism does not lead to the amoral conclusions you
seem to think it does.
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
[email protected] wrote:............................
Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not giveThis is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me,
me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third Mark >>>>>> whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think that >>>>>>>> Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to
answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up.
The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up
and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to
support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence that >>>>>>>> his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely doesn't >>>>>>>> want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current >>>>>>>> origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands that >>>>>>>> there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious
beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very
long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that exists >>>>>>>> today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't
apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3
billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was
seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last
billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they
started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever
gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for >>>>>>>> them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know
how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not mean >>>>>>>> what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told
them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity
when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion
years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of >>>>>>>> life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe >>>>>>>> IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the
creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land
vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3 billion >>>>>>>> years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth >>>>>>>> "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were created >>>>>>>> on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour >>>>>>>> make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we have >>>>>>>> already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of
the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I,
Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an >>>>>>> early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still
running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've
had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him.
He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a
verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it through >>>>>> "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world outlook? >>>>>>
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make
an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's
challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and suggests >>>>>>> that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't align with >>>>>>> the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of life. The
author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute to his
religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide evidence
for his claims. The argument also highlights the long history of >>>>>>> scientific understanding of life on Earth and dismisses the idea >>>>>>> of "God-of-the-gaps" denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author >>>>>>> contends that creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling >>>>>>> their beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this
evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing >>>>>>> the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with the >>>>>>> use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the
word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face
value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no
attempt to identify.
that
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example:
the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the
gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>>> species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in >>>>> strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it >>>>> took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where
they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how
or where
new species came from.
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers
as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in
order to support your religious beliefs?
You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is just
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it
has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the fossil
record, just so they can claim that their designer did it. IDiots
just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. The whole
point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that his designer
did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to do any IDiotic
science that would demonstrate that his god is responsible for the
origin of life. The fact is that Tour never wanted to fill the origin
of life gap with his designer. He is only using it like creationists
have used it from the beginning. All it is supposed to do is allow
creationists to wallow in the denial. Nothing positive is supposed to
come out of the stupidity because the Biblical creationists never
wanted to fill the gap with their god.
I know nothing about a Tour.
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of
the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that
because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam Top
Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they must have
logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life was #3 of the
Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions of years after
the fine tuning of our solar system (#2) and over 8 billion years
after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of years would pass after the
origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved among the
microorganism that had evolved after the origin of life. The Cambrian
explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer, occurred within a 25
million year period over half a billion years ago. The other IDiots
quit the ID scam because the god that fills the Top Six gaps is not
their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE to tell you how his god
fills the origin of life gap.
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called "top
six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support for Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so dangerous' is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no purpose no evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and kills it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the deer,
just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this Darwinist world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals,
apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly accepted basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge allows an all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist admits his "crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad, the man desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has
his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard is he wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good and
bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver. Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which
in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city
with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >>> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information >>> within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That
is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where information
in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's
the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these
several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or >>> lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this
mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is this
is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose,
plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these proofreading
and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the
only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow
there had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why
and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise
(solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it
is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil
record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to
the dust bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts to
explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:12:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
this is not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
How is the above "evidence of inteligent design"? You *still* don't
say.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >> planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >> evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
As written, your words imply G&E supported ID. They did not.
contrary, both lamented publicly, loudly and often how IDers regularly quotemined them.
And since you acknowledge 'they were dedicated to "following the
evidence," to wherever, it took them', perhaps you should take more
seriously their rejection of IDer's arguments.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that >> evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >> new species came from.
You say that like it's a Good Thing(c). More to the point, I am
hard-pressed to recall where IDers searched for answers to anything, nevermind found any.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record.
I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
There's a difference between "explain" and "explain away". The latter
is what IDers do.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:12:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >> this is not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
How is the above "evidence of inteligent design"? You *still* don't
say.
The fact of the abrupt appearance of species in the Earth's strata with unobserved predecessors,
as if from nowhere, could certainly be seen as design. All there is, in opposition is the overriding
paradigm of evolution.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
As written, your words imply G&E supported ID. They did not.
As I wrote above, both G & E were dedicated evolutionist. They honestly looked at the
fossil record, and took it at face value and purposely tried to fuse evolution and the
observed fossil record. This is not the purpose of ID.
To the
contrary, both lamented publicly, loudly and often how IDers regularly quotemined them.
I know Jill, especially the late Stephen J. Gould.
And since you acknowledge 'they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it took them', perhaps you should take more seriously their rejection of IDer's arguments.
I have no illusions about the late Stephen J. Gould or Niles Eldredge, as
to their objections to ID or to its advocates.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
You say that like it's a Good Thing(c). More to the point, I am hard-pressed to recall where IDers searched for answers to anything, nevermind found any.
Both evolution and intelligent design are historical in nature. Where evolution
searches the fossil record for evidence of change, ID searches for
evidence of
stability, no alteration and stasis.
modern phyla
appearing during the Cambrian can be seen as evidence of deliberate, purposeful
design. There are no sequences of lineages back to a sequence of
ancestors to a
common ancestor, But there are dotted lines pointing back to a common ancestor.
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of
history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
There's a difference between "explain" and "explain away". The latter
is what IDers do.
IDers don't have to, they can point to what's discovered and can be observed,
inspected and scrutinized. On the other hand, so much of evolution is unobserved,
missing, disappeared from weathering, time or failed to fossilize, which calls for
excuses, explaining away, rationalization and interpreting to fit.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for example.
who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set out
to re-define Paley's
evidences in such a way as to get rid of Paley God. I question whether
or not we would
know anything of Darwin had Paley not published his works. Like it or
not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
.This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that >>>> this is............................
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying >>>> to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap. >>>> It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most >>>> species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the
planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as >>> to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
They may base their assertion of ID based on scientific data, but they don't do it scientifically.
To do it scientifically, they would be proposing ways to test both the truth of their assertion,
and test its further implications. Above you disclaim doing that. You call it designed, wipe
off your hands, and say you're done. That's the opposite of science.
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for example.
who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set out
to re-define Paley's
evidences in such a way as to get rid of Paley God.
I question whether
or not we would
know anything of Darwin had Paley not published his works.
not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
It's no different in many respects, both ID and evolution are historical sciences,
biologist can no go back into the past and theorize, but cannot observe,
so as
Darwin was aware of this fact, and so he invented this concept "the
present is
the key to the past".
There is no way to actively test evolution by the
same
methodology as used by Pasteur and Redi who falsified spontaneous generation.
By the same methodology evolution is non falsifiable. You cannot test
it.
have searched for 150+ years for intermediates between species, finding
very few
which which could be classified as intermediates. When 99% of all
species became
extinct, there is no way to verify that any so called intermediate
species that
survived left offspring. So, we have theory, followed by the search for evidence to
support this theory. Without observation who's to say, given the desire
for evidence,
that what's found is not just the "best in field". Archaeopteryx for example, a organism
isolated in the fossil record, with no known ancestors or intermediate offspring.
Again Gould and Eldredge in trying to conform evolution with the fossil record
reenlisted abrupt appearance, stasis and disappearance of most species.
This is
observed, but the few that did not disappear are not observed.
To start with a hypothesis or theory, then initiate search programs to
find supporting
evidence, is this science?
It's possible to "prove" almost anything by such methods. I will admit,
this also
describes intelligent deign. But if supporting evidence is found, it
should suffice.
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city with >> many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained in >> DNA.
These strange things you say. Who do you imagine thought a cell was some simple
bag of jelly-like substance.
My words to describe what Darwin thought about the cell. He had no idea
as to how
complex the cell actually is.
I went downstairs and grabbed my copy of The Molecular
Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts. Nice guy by the way. The first edition of that
textbook was written 40 years ago. I don't recall anywhere in it where it says the cell
is a bag of jelly-like substances. That would shorten it considerably from the 1216
pages in my copy of the 2nd edition. You should read it.
It discusses DNA, and DNA repair. Based on what you write below, it would do you
good to study a competent presentation of not only what happens,
I provided reference which somehow failed which went into considerable detail.
but how it happens
in greater molecular detail. Things that seem so mysterious and magical to you might
seem less so if you knew more about the chemistry involved and how it's accomplished.
There is something that comes across as curious, the fact that so few
people know anything
about this topic, and virtually nothing on TO. Also this proofreading
and repair mechanism
was noted in the 1930's and again in 1940, but it came to nothing at the time - why?
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close to >> such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
And do you understand anything about how that is accomplished? Do you understand
the relationship between competitive binding energy of nucleotides and the rate constant
to tune up the fidelity? What about the exonuclease editing?
You see, you toss out a number that amazes you, but I don't think you actually understand
what's going on. And you are talking to people who do. Some of use were around when
the details were being worked out. Some of us have shared meals with the people who
did the work. One of us is, I'm pretty sure, (was) on a first name basis with some of the
principals. That itself isn't such a big deal but it goes as part of the fact that some of
us have a much deeper understanding of DNA replication and repair than you do. You
ooh and aah at some numbers but it's clear you don't actually understand what's going
on under the hood. Then you try to lecture us about how it must be designed.
You simply haven't begun to understand how things work well enough to be able to see
why they look like they evolved. And you don't seem willing to put in the effort to learn
a great deal more about how organic chemistry works, how catalysis works, how enzymes
work, how biopolymers behave, and what exists in molecular natural history. It is a great
deal of work, no doubt. It takes most people about 5 years to work their way through all
of the coursework that can give you perspective on the whole thing. A savant might do
it faster but I rather think some of these things need to stew awhile.
I asked questions which were ignored.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to the >> past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is
the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in a >> state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect to >> find. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
"Living fossils" are a bit of a myth. Things that look pretty similar to a fossil from..
the outside often have skeletal differences. There are no fossil coelacanths whose
skeletons match modern ones. And their DNA changes about as fast as that of
any other vertebrate.
These 3 article disagrees with you.
https://theconversation.com/from-coelacanths-to-crinoids-these-9-living-fossils-havent-changed-in-millions-of-years-188886
..
https://www.treehugger.com/animals-that-are-living-fossils-4869302
.. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/take-a-tour-of-these-incredible-living-fossils
There's a great many things you think you know that ain't so. It's like you thinking
that the Nasca Lines can only be seen from the air when they can be seen from
local hillsides.
This would be from a distance. But as I recall people who designed these forms could not see their handy work as they labored. Even if the figures could be observed from hill sides, so what, no one understands what purpose these figures served.
y served. You were given references with photos. But people have to correct
you time and again. And then you call them Nazae lines in Porto Rica.
You are wrong, I wrote about nothing about Nazca lines in Porto Rica, I
did,
years ago, discuss the stone spheres, of various sizes in Porto Rica.
The Nazca
lines, I also discussed, in the distant past, these Nazca figures are in
a desert
in Peru, not Porto Rica. I did not make those mistake.
BTW, after 35 years I was forcible retired after my heart problems and
open heart
surgery in a nursing home - of all places. It took 4 months to recover.
Then the
president of the company, requested that I visit his office. He offered
my old job
back, not as a salaried employee: as a contractor with a bit more
income, but no,
not any - zero benefits. So TO comes last - Employment comes first.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:12:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, that
this is not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find _evolution_trying
to find evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the gap.
It's after the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as evidence of
inteligent design.
How is the above "evidence of inteligent design"? You *still* don't
say.
The fact of the abrupt appearance of species in the Earth's strata with >unobserved predecessors,
as if from nowhere, could certainly be seen as design. All there is, in >opposition is the overriding paradigm of evolution.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to most
species, according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found abruptly in
strata, (punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>> planet, then they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist, but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it
took them.
As written, your words imply G&E supported ID. They did not.
As I wrote above, both G & E were dedicated evolutionist. They honestly >looked at the
fossil record, and took it at face value and purposely tried to fuse >evolution and the
observed fossil record. This is not the purpose of ID.
To the
contrary, both lamented publicly, loudly and often how IDers regularly
quotemined them.
I know Jill, especially the late Stephen J. Gould.
I have no illusions about the late Stephen J. Gould or Niles Eldredge, as
And since you acknowledge 'they were dedicated to "following the
evidence," to wherever, it took them', perhaps you should take more
seriously their rejection of IDer's arguments.
to their objections to ID or to its advocates.
Both evolution and intelligent design are historical in nature. Where >evolutionThis gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where they are >>> found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>> new species came from.
You say that like it's a Good Thing(c). More to the point, I am
hard-pressed to recall where IDers searched for answers to anything,
nevermind found any.
searches the fossil record for evidence of change, ID searches for
evidence of
stability, no alteration and stasis. The observation of almost all
modern phyla
appearing during the Cambrian can be seen as evidence of deliberate, >purposeful
design. There are no sequences of lineages back to a sequence of
ancestors to a
common ancestor, But there are dotted lines pointing back to a common >ancestor.
IDers don't have to, they can point to what's discovered and can be >observed,It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >>> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
There's a difference between "explain" and "explain away". The latter
is what IDers do.
inspected and scrutinized. On the other hand, so much of evolution is >unobserved,
missing, disappeared from weathering, time or failed to fossilize, which >calls for
excuses, explaining away, rationalization and interpreting to fit.
jillery wrote:<large snip for focus>
Both evolution and intelligent design are historical in nature. Where >evolution
searches the fossil record for evidence of change, ID searches for
evidence of
stability, no alteration and stasis. The observation of almost all
modern phyla
appearing during the Cambrian can be seen as evidence of deliberate, >purposeful
design. There are no sequences of lineages back to a sequence of
ancestors to a
common ancestor, But there are dotted lines pointing back to a common >ancestor.
IDers don't have to, they can point to what's discovered and can be
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil record. >>> I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to the dust bowl of >>> history. And even today there's been efforts to explain away this observation.
There's a difference between "explain" and "explain away". The latter
is what IDers do.
observed,
inspected and scrutinized. On the other hand, so much of evolution is >unobserved,
missing, disappeared from weathering, time or failed to fossilize, which >calls for
excuses, explaining away, rationalization and interpreting to fit.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:53:42 -0400, the following appearedWell?
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<[email protected]>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:In that case, of what possible relevance is it? One might as
On 2023-10-13 02:50:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:Of course, you must realize I was not in reference to what was known
[ � ]
� You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as to
how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for answers as >>>> to how or where new species came from.
Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which in >>>> most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Do you think you're telling us something we don't know? It has been
understood for at least one hundred years that the cell is not a simple
jelly-like substance. Can you cite a single textbook since 1945 that
says that it is?
after 1945, but rather 145 years or so ago.
well cite what was "known" in 900AD Scandinavia about
lightning, that it was Thor throwing Mjollnir around.
No response?Through iterative changes via selection of improvementsWhy the insult!?? Do you believe that I thought that they came toLike a city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein machines >>>> carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information contained
in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of� information >>>> within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past". And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been. in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That is >>>> the fact that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge is
one where most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain in
a state of _stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden >>>> disappearance from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would expect
to find.
How curious, therefore, that Gould and Eldridge did not become
intelligent-design crackpots!
accept intelligent
design? No, however they did in fact, try to conform evolution to fit
the fossil record.
No, how did _nature_ with its mindless, purposeless, careless world >>accidentally
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out. >>>> What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are theories and hypothesis as to� how life started or� where information
in cells originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >>>> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So it's the >>>> fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these >>>> several (5) proofreading� and repair� mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein
and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma" there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the fitness or
lack of� fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this mindless, >>>> careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, if this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of >>>> massive numbers of� random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
It strongly implies that you haven't given any serious thought to how
science progresses. "I don't understand, so God must have done it" won't >>> convince anyone who isn't convinced already.
originate this highly complex proofreading and repair protein machines.
You have no idea as to what steps or what procedures accomplished this. As >>one person stated, I do know, how it happened - it evolved. Really, why
and how??
caused by selection and fixation of more viable variations,
mutational or otherwise. It was neither "accidental" nor
"random" beyond the initial variant; selection by improved
reproductive success is neither.
Nothing?But then, you just ignore everything. Obviously _you_ have no answers or >>explanationIn science, theories aren't "guesses", but testable *and
You just trust other people somehow have the answers. They do not - only >>guesses,
hypothesis and theories.
tested* hypotheses which have not been disproven, which
account for all known data, and which make testable
predictions.
I'm *sure* this has been pointed out to you, multiple times.
Perhaps you should write it on your hand...
I guess you don't.IOW the usual: "We don't know everything in the finestThe references I provided were by scientist. What I found that these >>scientist went
�purpose, plan and deliberate design.� There's no reason to think these proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then the only >>>> alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere, somehow there had >>>> to be purpose.
How exactly
did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise? Why and how could >>>> random mutations detect faulty mutation then devise (corrections)through random
mutations and natural selection
Have you read any of the papers written by real scientists who study
exactly these questions? Which ones? What did you find unconvincing?
into great detain to explain how the 5 proofreading and repair
mechanisms work. But
almost nothing, as to how these functions originated. No one knows how
life itself got
started, the same goes for the vast amounts of information in the DNA of >>the most basic
cell. Here we have a catch 22 situation. There is no life without >>information (DNA)
and there is no DNA without life. Redi and Pasteur have, yet to be >>_proven_ wrong.
There is not a known, observed or proven case where life came from >>non-life. Of
course, there is hope, faith and trust that science will provide the
answer and this
gives rise to hypothesis and numerous theories as to how life started. >>However, there is positive observed and undeniable evidence of life from >>life.
And not a single observed exception to Pasteur rule. The question is
when and how
and why did DNA proofreading an repair come about. No one knows!
detail, therefore we know nothing (and usually, therefore
Goddidit).". Don't you ever get tired of trying to pass off
this sort of garbage?
On 10/14/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[snip to one point]
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for
example. who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set
out to re-define Paley's evidences in such a way as to get rid of Paley God. >> I question whether or not we would know anything of Darwin had
Paley not published his works. Like it or not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
What is your evidence that Alfred Russel Wallace read Paley's _Natural Theology_? If he did not, then we know with certainty that the book was
not a spur to the discovery of evolution.
You have made it clear that your own rejection of evolution is based on
your religious belief, not the objective evidence. That does not mean everybody must be as lacking in faith as you are.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/14/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[snip to one point]
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for
example. who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set
out to re-define Paley's evidences in such a way as to get rid of
Paley God. I question whether or not we would know anything of
Darwin had Paley not published his works. Like it or not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
What is your evidence that Alfred Russel Wallace read Paley's _Natural
Theology_? If he did not, then we know with certainty that the book
was not a spur to the discovery of evolution.
That's not my argument. But Darwin certain did read Paley's Natural
Theology.
You have made it clear that your own rejection of evolution is basedI began questioning evolution 2 decades after my 6 years at the
on your religious belief, not the objective evidence. That does not
mean everybody must be as lacking in faith as you are.
local universe I learned evolution during my education. As a result
I thought evolution was rational, logical and was a fact, which I
did _not_ question.
In a discussion with a friend, he challenged me to read a book " Entitled Evolution a theory in crisis". For months I refused; after all, a
"crisis" - a
waste of my time - what's the possibly this author really knows anything about evolution! After further prompting by my friend, Tomas J. I began reading.
I learned the author was a scientist. a Doctor, which surprised me, I thought, that
all scientist were committed evolutionist. After reading for about an
hour I was
frustrate and I tossed the book in the trash. Later he ask me if I had finished
with his book? What could I tell him! But then, I rationalized my
action, he was
better off without this book. I didn't answer him.
There were some things I had read, that continued coming up in my mind.
A little troubling,
So I went to a book store and had them order me a replacement, they had
none on hand. I
needed to get Tom a book anyway. After I received the book, I re-read
the first chapters
again, this time it was much more understandable this time. I had become
a bit less biased.
In further reading, there were things he said about the evidence of
evolution that I knew was true. He found fault with some much of what I
had accepted as true. It was an eye-opener for me. In fact
I became angry, I felt I had been lied to, deceived, things kept
"secret" and misled. But a few weeks later, I felt a the need to find
some critics reviews of Dr. Denton's book. At the library I found a
paper published in Nature.
The first, review started out writing this - even though Denton's tries
to make it sound like a scientific treatise, he never uses the cord
creation, he never mentions God or Christian. However, he was never
intended for scientist, rather it was addressed to people who already
was against evolution. But the rest of the criticism was the same cut
and paste arguments that's been used again and again by people who
challenge ID or scientific creationism including the plaintiff at the
Dover trial as well as people on TO who take exception to ID or creationism.
I don't think I was ever an atheist but I was definitely agnostic with
strong tendencies towards atheism. I think religion, but an escape for people who are so biased against religion, and they
are told that ID is a religion so, they don't give it a chance. And I
suspect there is some anxiety
which they don't want to face. I've been there.
But whether it religious based or not, it really about the evidence
which many people, and even some scientist once they a honest and open
minded frame of mind, they became to accept ID
as having merit.
On 9/24/2023 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 9/23/2023 8:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, MartinIn addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the fine
Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't >>>>>>> really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific
evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts.
My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of
the Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling
well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are as >>>>> candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but
with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and
manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and creates
living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation
(microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for >>>>> a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into
existence; for one thing, there are too many things all vertebrates have in
common. It suggests a bunch of junior angels at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe. >>>>>
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining
all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in
properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply enough
to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in
borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I would >>>>>> say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for Christians,
being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for materialists, >>>>>> disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand.
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I
have a natural tendency to look for natural causes. However, I also acknowledge
that the human mind might not be able to penetrate some mysteries, and OOL
could well be one of them. Without penetration by the human mind, there >>>>> is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across to
them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of
them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to discuss
a lot of other things.
tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in
this solar system with advanced living organisms. There is something
else which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule
comes with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
;https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in
the 40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual
biases and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the
researchers were confused and did not know what to make of the
discovery. But this was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
;In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what
exactly, is the how; the what and why does it matter about mutations
in DNA/RNA? IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this raises a lot
of questions. Exactly how was random mutations detected and
repaired? Was the random mutations discovered by another set of
random mutations and natural selection that devised the protein
machines capable of proof-reading and repair of mutations? Explain
step by step exactly how and why this occurred. I realize that a few
mutations escape the detection and repair machinery and result in
genetic diseases that we observe. However, the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we
observe in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
No answers!
You still refuse to understand why the other anti-evolution IDiotic
creationists ran from the Top Six. The origin of life is #3 and Fine
tuning is #2. The Cambrian explosion gap denial that you have put up
previously is #5 and the Big Bang is #1.
;What I don't understand is your utterly insane obsession with the "Top
Six"! You don't believe in anything, you have no life apart from TO.
What I know of the Top Six, I accept the as fair representative of ID.
What you should understand is why you still use the Top Six denial
without wanting to understand how stupid and degenerate of a thing it is
to do. You have admitted that you do not want to understand how the Top
Six fit into your religious beliefs, and what does that tell you about
what you are doing?
Why try to lie about someone else? What lies do you have to keep
telling yourself to keep using the Top Six? You know that you are using
the junk to support your religious beliefs, so why keep doing it if you
don't want to believe in the designer that is responsible for your gap denial? The other IDiots couldn't do it any longer. Kalk and Bill
never told you why they quit the ID scam when the Top Six came out, but
you should understand why. It is the same reason why you don't want to understand how your religious beliefs fit into the gaps that you are using.
Intelligent design is strictly about evidence pointing to design. One
The simple fact is that most IDiotic type creationists like yourself
never wanted to fill those gaps with their Biblical god.
;
may believe that the Bibical God is the designer. But that's exactly
what it is; it's a belief, but not of evidence. Do you know the
difference between of belief and of evidence? You show no indication
that you do!
How does lying about what the ID scam has been for decades do anything
for you? The ID perps have only claimed to be doing the ID science, but they have never done any. The last thing that they want to do is
accomplish any ID science. The majority of their support still comes
from the YEC because they have lied to the YEC rubes about the "Big
Tent" that ID is. Just imagine if Meyer ever demonstrated that some designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion and the
diversification of bilateral animals during a 25 million year time
period over half a billion years ago? Meyer has consistently made a big deal about how the span of time has decreased from 45 million years when
the Scientific creationists used to use the Cambrian explosion denial to
the current 25 million year time period. What if any of them determine
that some designer is responsible for the origin of life over 3 billion
years ago. It is just a fact that the ID perps never wanted to
accomplish any ID science because it would just be more science for the Biblical creationists to deny.
There is no longer any reason for any Biblical creationist to continue
to lie about the ID scam when the ID perps have been stupid enough to
deliver the Top Six in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe. The Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago. The fine tuning of our solar system occurred
4.5 billion years ago. It took over 8 billion years of dying stars to produce the elements that make up our solar system. The Origin of life occurred around 3.8 billion years ago on an earth much different than it
is today. The flagellum was designed over a billion years ago, and the Cambrian explosion of sea creatures occurred over half a billion years
ago long before there were land plants on this earth, and the
angiosperms described in the Bible were designed long after there were
land animals. The ID perps never wanted to fill the gaps in the human fossil record for the last 10 million years because for most of the creationist rubes that supported the ID scam there was no millions of
years ago to fill with anything.
The god that
fills the existing Top Six gaps is not Biblical enough for mostOkay, no problem with that fact! ID is strictly about design, not
Biblical creationists so they ran from the Top Six and stopped
claiming to be IDiots.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
"So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe."
Biblical creationists cannot deal with what is known between the
gaps, and that was made clear to most of them when the ID perps
presented them in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe". The designer of
the Top Six is not the Biblical designer. Wallowing in the denial
will never change that reality.
about any specific designer.
It occurs to me, that the gaps is where we find evolution, trying to
fill the gaps between species
with intermediate or transitional fossils.
Biblical creationists never want to fill the fossil gaps with a
designer. Just take the whale fossil gap junk that Sternberg has been cooking up for the ID scam since 2007. The Reason to Believe old earth creationists never want those fossil gaps filled because they need
whales to be among the sea creatures created before land animals. Why
don't you demonstrate that there are any fossil gaps that YEC
creationists, who are the major support base for the ID scam, want
filled with a designer. Just do that simple exercise. Start with #5 of the Top Six (the Cambrian explosion).
ID is only about the denial, why would you want to continue to lie to yourself. ID perps like Behe and Denton have told IDiots for decades
that biological evolution is a fact of nature. They have also warned
IDiots that you can't expect much to change because they understood that
it was what was between the gaps that creationists had to worry about. Filling the Top Six gaps with ID science was never an option. It would
just be more science for Biblical creationists like yourself to deny.
Ron Okimoto
;Biblical creationist!?? There is nothing in Intelligent Design taken
If you try to use the Top Six in a positive and straightforward
manner you would likely join the ranks of the TO regulars that found
that they could not deal with the Top Six. The Top Six really did
kill IDiocy on TO, and your use of them one at a time is as worthless
to you as it had always been to all the other Biblical creationists.
;
from your Bible. Nor is your Bible ever used as evidence to support
ID. So you should stop with your idiotic unsupported accusations
charges and assertions as they do not apply to intelligent design.
Ron Okimoto
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not give >>>>>>> me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to me, >>>>>> that
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third
Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think
that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. >>>>>>>>> The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up >>>>>>>>> and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence
that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely
doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current >>>>>>>>> origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands
that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious
beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that
exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was
seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants and >>>>>>>>> animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed for >>>>>>>>> them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know >>>>>>>>> how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not
mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for creationist >>>>>>>>> Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their flood >>>>>>>>> geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an earth >>>>>>>>> billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin of >>>>>>>>> life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. Can a >>>>>>>>> Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe >>>>>>>>> IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the
creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before sea >>>>>>>>> creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land
vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3
billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young earth, >>>>>>>>> geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth >>>>>>>>> "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were
created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret the >>>>>>>>> Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can Tour >>>>>>>>> make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we >>>>>>>>> have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this time. >>>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail of >>>>>>> the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than I, >>>>>>> Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to >>>>>>>> an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still >>>>>>>> running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've
had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a
verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it
through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world
outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make >>>>>>>> an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's >>>>>>>> challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and
suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't >>>>>>>> align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of >>>>>>>> life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not contribute >>>>>>>> to his religious beliefs and questions whether he can provide
evidence for his claims. The argument also highlights the long >>>>>>>> history of scientific understanding of life on Earth and
dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps" denial as inadequate.
Ultimately, the author contends that creationists like Tour
should focus on reconciling their beliefs with established
scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this
evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, losing >>>>>>>> the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection with
the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the
word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face
value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no >>>>>>> attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example:
the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain the >>>>>> gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the
"explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to
most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it >>>>>> took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where
they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how
or where
new species came from.
to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for
answers as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in
order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or
dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that the
whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your religious
beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above. Just because
you never reference your religious beliefs is part of the stupid and
dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you present is
literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless creationists
rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than as bait to gain support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do you know of a single instance where the ID perps have given the rubes the promised ID
science? What have the rubes always been given instead for over 2 decades? The ID perps admitted in their initial mission statement that their purpose was to get religion back into national politics even as
they lied about the ID scam having nothing to do with their religious beliefs. They even had God and Adam depicted in their logo. Paley was more honest using the same design arguments, and called it natural
theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do most of
the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could not deal with
the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and rational reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will never support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top Six design gaps is not the biblical
god that most IDiotic type creationists want to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing. Pretending
that what you are doing is not about defending your religious beliefs is
as stupid and dishonest as it has always been. Kalk and Bill are
exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and lie to themselves
about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality. It is science that you need to deny already because that evolutionary gap has
been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID perps like Behe and Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap denial wasn't going to change
the fact of biological evolution. If the origin of life gap or the
Cambrian explosion gap was filled with some intelligent designer it
would just be more science for you to deny because of your religious beliefs. You should have used my links to the Reason to Believe old
earth creationists that claim to be IDiots and see how they can't deal
with the Top Six. They know that the origin of life over 3 billion
years ago is not mentioned in the Bible, and they can't deal with things
like the Cambrian explosion that occurred within a 25 million year time period over half a billion years ago because it means that sea creatures
were created before land plants. That is not what is written in the Bible.
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists, and
when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this universe
a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself about it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book. All
the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would fit into natural history that was supposed to be the creation. Paley never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the eye created in.
Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the earth, and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals. He didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how the creation had changed
over time. Instead he focused on bits where he didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just like the ID perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that are not supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist in. Paley got away with it because the context
was not fully understood, but IDiots today do not have that excuse. When
most IDiotic creationist rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically obvious fact they quit the ID scam. Some of them are still posting as Biblical creationists, but the ID scam is no longer anything worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face
the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist scam.
Ron Okimoto
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is just
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it
has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
;I know nothing about a Tour.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the fossil
record, just so they can claim that their designer did it. IDiots
just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. The
whole point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that his
designer did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to do any
IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is responsible
for the origin of life. The fact is that Tour never wanted to fill
the origin of life gap with his designer. He is only using it like
creationists have used it from the beginning. All it is supposed to
do is allow creationists to wallow in the denial. Nothing positive
is supposed to come out of the stupidity because the Biblical
creationists never wanted to fill the gap with their god.
;
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called "top
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of
the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that
because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam Top
Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they must have
logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life was #3 of
the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions of years
after the fine tuning of our solar system (#2) and over 8 billion
years after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of years would pass after
the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved among the
microorganism that had evolved after the origin of life. The
Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer, occurred
within a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. The
other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills the Top Six
gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE to tell you
how his god fills the origin of life gap.
;
six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support for
Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so
dangerous'
is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no purpose no
evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless
indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and
kills
it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the
deer, just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this
Darwinist
world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals,
apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly accepted
basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge
allows an
all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist admits
his
"crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad, the
man
desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has
his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard is he
wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good
and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver.
Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which
in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city
with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein
machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information
contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even close
to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of information >>>> within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key to
the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must have
been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That
is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge
is one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain
in a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would
expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not go
extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out. >>>> What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA molecule. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where
information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless and
blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's
random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So
it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these
several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein >>>> and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the "central
dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the
fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this
mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is
this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild swings of >>>> massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought, purpose,
plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these
proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then
the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere,
somehow there had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise?
Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then
devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it
is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil
record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated to >>>>>> the dust bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts to
explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
I began questioning evolution 2 decades after my 6 years at the
local universe I learned evolution during my education. As a result
I thought evolution was rational, logical and was a fact, which I
did _not_ question.
You don't know a thing about my religious beliefs. Simply, because I _never_ have mentioned my religious beliefs. Consequently, you don't know whether
my religion is Jewish, Muslim Mormon, Christian, Buddhist or devil worship.
I know why you and so many others insist on religion as fundamental to those who disagree with Darwinist.
It's a self-defense mechanism. It provides you
with a escape. You fear there is something IDest know and you don't,
otherwise
they would be with me, and this brings you anxiety and apprehension. But you don"t want to know!
RonO wrote:
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face
the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist
scam.
What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty.
If you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin
wrong to kill or have killed millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia.
Was he wrong? Why?
[ … ]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
RonO wrote:
On 9/24/2023 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 9/23/2023 8:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:25:43 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:25:43 PM UTC+10, MartinIn addition to OOL there is other things in nature example: the
Harran wrote:
It seems to me that you make many criticisms of the ToE but don't >>>>>>>> really have anything better to offer in its place.
Okay, a short overview, FWIW. My interpretation of the scientific >>>>>>> evidence is that even the simplest life is beyond the reach of
natural causes, e.g. for the reasons outlined in my recent posts. >>>>>>> My Christian faith (Reformed, Evangelical) recognises the God of >>>>>>> the Bible the alternative explanation.
It's good to see you so forthright about your beliefs, yet falling >>>>>> well short of claiming
that they can be shown to be the best ones. Few others here are
as candid; I am one of that few,
but my beliefs are different. Since I have written about them
elsewhere, I'll not dwell
on them here.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1). Personally, I lean towards an old earth view, but >>>>>>> with direct divine intervention: God suspends "natural" laws and >>>>>>> manipulates matter, generates and embeds information, and creates >>>>>>> living things preloaded with capacity for adaptation
(microevolution).
I'm not sure of the need for suspension. Quantum mechanics allows for >>>>>> a certain amount of leeway. Combine that with chaos theory and
catastrophe theory, and there may be enough to push evolution in
various directions.
I do not like the idea of God "poofing" whole new animals into
existence; for one thing, there are too many things all
vertebrates have in common. It suggests a bunch of junior angels
at work rather than a being with
the intelligence and power to create or even just design a universe. >>>>>>
> God also created the physical laws themselves ("...sustaining >>>>>> all things by his powerful word." Hebrews 1:3a), so everything is
ultimately "supernatural".
The word "laws" is best understood as "regular built-in
properties." If God created our universe,
its basic physical objects and energies were designed simply
enough to give the illusion of some
external "law" making them do what is natural for them to do.
This view is not at odds with science, but celebrates it as the
pursuit of understanding a God's creation, and utilising this
knowledge to work as secondary creators in the world. This in
borne out by the fact that many scientists are Christians. I
would say there's a risk of error that goes both ways: for
Christians, being too ready to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, and for >>>>>>> materialists, disallowing supernatural intervention out of hand. >>>>>>>
How about you?
I have come to talk.origins because of my love of science, so I
have a natural tendency to look for natural causes. However, I
also acknowledge that the human mind might not be able to
penetrate some mysteries, and OOL could well be one of them.
Without penetration by the human mind, there is no science.
Most t.o. participants don't like that, and so I may come across
to them as someone
who secretly hopes for supernatural explanations; but if more of
them were candid
about how little we know about OOL, I would be more free to
discuss a lot of other things.
fine tuned universe, including
the location, shape and size of Planet Earth. The only planet in
this solar system with advanced living organisms. There is
something else which I have _never_ found on T.O.. And to only to a
small degree elsewhere. That is the _fact_ that the DNA molecule
comes with its own proof-reading
and multiple repair mechanisms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3/
I especially liked the cartoon characters in this YouTube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
;https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
This repair of DNA was first discovered in the 1930's and again in
the 40's, but the tendency was to ignore it because of intellectual
biases and to lesser political expediences. And the fact that the
researchers were confused and did not know what to make of the
discovery. But this was more than a decade before Watson and Crick.
;In mindless, purposeless, meaningless, blind universe, what
exactly, is the how; the what and why does it matter about
mutations in DNA/RNA? IOW what it that "cares"? In my view this
raises a lot of questions. Exactly how was random mutations
detected and repaired? Was the random mutations discovered by
another set of random mutations and natural selection that devised
the protein machines capable of proof-reading and repair of
mutations? Explain step by step exactly how and why this occurred.
I realize that a few mutations escape the detection and repair
machinery and result in genetic diseases that we observe. However,
the modern human species
has been around for 200, 000 years. In that time due to the 2/ND
law of thermodynamics, entropy
increases. This possibly could account for the short-comings we
observe in the present day DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms.
No answers!
You still refuse to understand why the other anti-evolution IDiotic
creationists ran from the Top Six. The origin of life is #3 and
Fine tuning is #2. The Cambrian explosion gap denial that you have
put up previously is #5 and the Big Bang is #1.
Ok I have no Idea where your "TOP SIX" came from. But the origin of life is still unknown. Life comes from pre-existing life, in the history no one has ever observed non-life giving rise to life. The Cambrian gap remains and
is and this fact alone should falsify evolution. But it doesn't, because evolution
is non-falshiable.
;What I don't understand is your utterly insane obsession with the
"Top Six"! You don't believe in anything, you have no life apart from
TO.
What I know of the Top Six, I accept the as fair representative of ID.
What you should understand is why you still use the Top Six denial
without wanting to understand how stupid and degenerate of a thing it
is to do. You have admitted that you do not want to understand how
the Top Six fit into your religious beliefs, and what does that tell
you about what you are doing?
You don't know a thing about my religious beliefs. Simply, because I
_never_
have mentioned my religious beliefs. Consequently, you don't know whether
my religion is Jewish, Muslim Mormon, Christian, Buddhist or devil worship.
I know why you and so many others insist on religion as fundamental to
those
who disagree with Darwinist. It's a self-defense mechanism. It provides you with a escape. You fear there is something IDest know and you don't, otherwise
they would be with me, and this brings you anxiety and apprehension.
But you
don"t want to know!
See the above!
Why try to lie about someone else? What lies do you have to keep
telling yourself to keep using the Top Six? You know that you are
using the junk to support your religious beliefs, so why keep doing it
if you don't want to believe in the designer that is responsible for
your gap denial? The other IDiots couldn't do it any longer. Kalk
and Bill never told you why they quit the ID scam when the Top Six
came out, but you should understand why. It is the same reason why
you don't want to understand how your religious beliefs fit into the
gaps that you are using.
Intelligent design is strictly about evidence pointing to design. One
The simple fact is that most IDiotic type creationists like yourself
never wanted to fill those gaps with their Biblical god.
;
may believe that the Bibical God is the designer. But that's exactly
what it is; it's a belief, but not of evidence. Do you know the
difference between of belief and of evidence? You show no indication
that you do!
How does lying about what the ID scam has been for decades do anything
for you? The ID perps have only claimed to be doing the ID science,
but they have never done any. The last thing that they want to do is
accomplish any ID science. The majority of their support still comes
from the YEC because they have lied to the YEC rubes about the "Big
Tent" that ID is. Just imagine if Meyer ever demonstrated that some
designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion and the
diversification of bilateral animals during a 25 million year time
period over half a billion years ago? Meyer has consistently made a
big deal about how the span of time has decreased from 45 million
years when the Scientific creationists used to use the Cambrian
explosion denial to the current 25 million year time period. What if
any of them determine that some designer is responsible for the origin
of life over 3 billion years ago. It is just a fact that the ID perps
never wanted to accomplish any ID science because it would just be
more science for the Biblical creationists to deny.
There is no longer any reason for any Biblical creationist to continue
to lie about the ID scam when the ID perps have been stupid enough to
deliver the Top Six in "their order simply reflecting that in which
they must logically have occurred within our universe. The Big Bang
happened over 13 billion years ago. The fine tuning of our solar
system occurred 4.5 billion years ago. It took over 8 billion years
of dying stars to produce the elements that make up our solar system.
The Origin of life occurred around 3.8 billion years ago on an earth
much different than it is today. The flagellum was designed over a
billion years ago, and the Cambrian explosion of sea creatures
occurred over half a billion years ago long before there were land
plants on this earth, and the angiosperms described in the Bible were
designed long after there were land animals. The ID perps never
wanted to fill the gaps in the human fossil record for the last 10
million years because for most of the creationist rubes that supported
the ID scam there was no millions of years ago to fill with anything.
The god that
fills the existing Top Six gaps is not Biblical enough for mostOkay, no problem with that fact! ID is strictly about design, not
Biblical creationists so they ran from the Top Six and stopped
claiming to be IDiots.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
"So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe."
Biblical creationists cannot deal with what is known between the
gaps, and that was made clear to most of them when the ID perps
presented them in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe". The designer of
the Top Six is not the Biblical designer. Wallowing in the denial
will never change that reality.
about any specific designer.
It occurs to me, that the gaps is where we find evolution, trying to
fill the gaps between species
with intermediate or transitional fossils.
Biblical creationists never want to fill the fossil gaps with a
designer. Just take the whale fossil gap junk that Sternberg has been
cooking up for the ID scam since 2007. The Reason to Believe old
earth creationists never want those fossil gaps filled because they
need whales to be among the sea creatures created before land
animals. Why don't you demonstrate that there are any fossil gaps
that YEC creationists, who are the major support base for the ID scam,
want filled with a designer. Just do that simple exercise. Start
with #5 of the Top Six (the Cambrian explosion).
ID is only about the denial, why would you want to continue to lie to
yourself. ID perps like Behe and Denton have told IDiots for decades
that biological evolution is a fact of nature. They have also warned
IDiots that you can't expect much to change because they understood
that it was what was between the gaps that creationists had to worry
about. Filling the Top Six gaps with ID science was never an option.
It would just be more science for Biblical creationists like yourself
to deny.
Ron Okimoto
;Biblical creationist!?? There is nothing in Intelligent Design taken
If you try to use the Top Six in a positive and straightforward
manner you would likely join the ranks of the TO regulars that found
that they could not deal with the Top Six. The Top Six really did
kill IDiocy on TO, and your use of them one at a time is as
worthless to you as it had always been to all the other Biblical
creationists.
;
from your Bible. Nor is your Bible ever used as evidence to support
ID. So you should stop with your idiotic unsupported accusations
charges and assertions as they do not apply to intelligent design.
Ron Okimoto
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws >>> in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
Now I must ask Ron to consider the morality of the group he sees himself
as a part of, which requires him to view outsiders as immoral. Is
*that* moral?
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill anotherFWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based.
The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
Now I must ask Ron to consider the morality of the group he sees himself >as a part of, which requires him to view outsiders as immoral. Is
*that* moral?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/14/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[snip to one point]
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley for
example. who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God.
It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set
out to re-define Paley's evidences in such a way as to get rid of
Paley God. I question whether or not we would know anything of
Darwin had Paley not published his works. Like it or not, Evolutionist
owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
What is your evidence that Alfred Russel Wallace read Paley's _Natural
Theology_? If he did not, then we know with certainty that the book
was not a spur to the discovery of evolution.
That's not my argument. But Darwin certain did read Paley's Natural
Theology.
You have made it clear that your own rejection of evolution is based
on your religious belief, not the objective evidence. That does not
mean everybody must be as lacking in faith as you are.
I don't think I was ever an atheist but I was definitely agnostic with
strong tendencies towards atheism. I think religion, but an escape for people who are so biased against religion, and they
are told that ID is a religion so, they don't give it a chance. And I
suspect there is some anxiety
which they don't want to face. I've been there.
But whether it religious based or not, it really about the evidence
which many people, and even some scientist once they a honest and open
minded frame of mind, they became to accept ID
as having merit.
RonO wrote:....
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in
order to support your religious beliefs?
You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth.� It is just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
On 10/16/23 4:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/14/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:That's not my argument. But Darwin certain did read Paley's Natural
[snip to one point]
Some form of Intelligent Design precedes evolution. William Paley
for example. who ascribed the design he observed in nature to his God. >>>> It's too much of a coincidence that Darwin after reading Paley, set
out to re-define Paley's evidences in such a way as to get rid of
Paley God. I question whether or not we would know anything of
Darwin had Paley not published his works. Like it or not, Evolutionist >>>> owe a debt of gratitude to William Paley.
What is your evidence that Alfred Russel Wallace read Paley's
_Natural Theology_? If he did not, then we know with certainty that
the book was not a spur to the discovery of evolution.
;
Theology.
You have made it clear that your own rejection of evolution is based
on your religious belief, not the objective evidence. That does not
mean everybody must be as lacking in faith as you are.
[snip Ron Dean's story about Dr. Denton's book changing his life]
I don't think I was ever an atheist but I was definitely agnostic with
strong tendencies towards atheism. I think religion, but an escape
for people who are so biased against religion, and they
are told that ID is a religion so, they don't give it a chance. And I
suspect there is some anxiety
which they don't want to face. I've been there.
Sorry, but your story does not ring true; at least, not as the whole
story. If it were the whole story, you would not see the people arguing against you as biased against religion; you would at least consider the possibility that we are biased instead against lies and misinformation
(which Dr. Denton's book is full of). And if you were verging on
atheism yourself, I strongly doubt you would associate atheism with lack
of morality, as you have in other posts.
But whether it religious based or not, it really about the evidence
which many people, and even some scientist once they a honest and open
minded frame of mind, they became to accept ID
as having merit.
And yet you have never yet shown us *any* evidence for ID. Instead, you claim that your subjective opinion is all that matters.
I agree that it really is about the evidence. And the *objective*
evidence shows that life is not what we would expect from an intelligent designer. Somehow you keep hiding that fact from yourself.
RonO wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as >>>>> to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does notThis is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to
give me your email address,
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third
Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think >>>>>>>>>> that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. >>>>>>>>>> The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up >>>>>>>>>> and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence >>>>>>>>>> that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely
doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the current >>>>>>>>>> origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands >>>>>>>>>> that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious
beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that
exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was >>>>>>>>>> seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular plants >>>>>>>>>> and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed >>>>>>>>>> for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know >>>>>>>>>> how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not >>>>>>>>>> mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for
creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their >>>>>>>>>> flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out how a >>>>>>>>>> global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an >>>>>>>>>> earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin >>>>>>>>>> of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. >>>>>>>>>> Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to believe >>>>>>>>>> IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the >>>>>>>>>> creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created before >>>>>>>>>> sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land
vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why should >>>>>>>>>> science have to know what happened to create life over 3
billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young >>>>>>>>>> earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old earth >>>>>>>>>> "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were
created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to reinterpret >>>>>>>>>> the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can >>>>>>>>>> Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what we >>>>>>>>>> have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this >>>>>>>>>> time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail >>>>>>>> of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual
algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than >>>>>>>> I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to >>>>>>>>> an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it
still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've >>>>>>>> had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a >>>>>>>> verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it
through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world
outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to make >>>>>>>>> an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's >>>>>>>>> challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and
suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't >>>>>>>>> align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin of >>>>>>>>> life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not
contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he >>>>>>>>> can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also
highlights the long history of scientific understanding of life >>>>>>>>> on Earth and dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps" denial as >>>>>>>>> inadequate. Ultimately, the author contends that creationists >>>>>>>>> like Tour should focus on reconciling their beliefs with
established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this >>>>>>>>> evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition,
losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some circumspection >>>>>>>>> with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the >>>>>>>> word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face
value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made no >>>>>>>> attempt to identify.
me, that
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For example: >>>>>>> the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain
the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as
evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the >>>>>>> "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies to >>>>>>> most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>>>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted
evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to wherever, it >>>>>>> took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation:
arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, where >>>>>>> they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how >>>>>>> or where
new species came from.
answers as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this
in order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or
dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the >>> only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that the
whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your religious
beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above. Just because
you never reference your religious beliefs is part of the stupid and
dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you present is
literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless creationists
rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than as bait to gain
support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do you know of a single
instance where the ID perps have given the rubes the promised ID
science? What have the rubes always been given instead for over 2
decades? The ID perps admitted in their initial mission statement
that their purpose was to get religion back into national politics
even as they lied about the ID scam having nothing to do with their
religious beliefs. They even had God and Adam depicted in their
logo. Paley was more honest using the same design arguments, and
called it natural theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support
the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do
most of the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could not
deal with the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and rational
reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will never
support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top Six design
gaps is not the biblical god that most IDiotic type creationists want
to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing.
Pretending that what you are doing is not about defending your
religious beliefs is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been.
Kalk and Bill are exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and
lie to themselves about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality. It
is science that you need to deny already because that evolutionary gap
has been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID perps like Behe and
Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap denial wasn't going
to change the fact of biological evolution. If the origin of life gap
or the Cambrian explosion gap was filled with some intelligent
designer it would just be more science for you to deny because of your
religious beliefs. You should have used my links to the Reason to
Believe old earth creationists that claim to be IDiots and see how
they can't deal with the Top Six. They know that the origin of life
over 3 billion years ago is not mentioned in the Bible, and they can't
deal with things like the Cambrian explosion that occurred within a 25
million year time period over half a billion years ago because it
means that sea creatures were created before land plants. That is not
what is written in the Bible.
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists, and
when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this
universe a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself about it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book.
All the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would fit
into natural history that was supposed to be the creation. Paley
never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the eye
created in. Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the earth,
and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past
biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals. He
didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how the
creation had changed over time. Instead he focused on bits where he
didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just like the ID
perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that are not
supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist in. Paley
got away with it because the context was not fully understood, but
IDiots today do not have that excuse. When most IDiotic creationist
rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically obvious fact they quit
the ID scam. Some of them are still posting as Biblical creationists,
but the ID scam is no longer anything worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face
the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist scam.
What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If you
did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Ron Okimoto
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is
just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just
what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
;I know nothing about a Tour.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the fossil
record, just so they can claim that their designer did it. IDiots
just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. The
whole point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that his
designer did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to do any
IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is responsible
for the origin of life. The fact is that Tour never wanted to fill
the origin of life gap with his designer. He is only using it like
creationists have used it from the beginning. All it is supposed to
do is allow creationists to wallow in the denial. Nothing positive
is supposed to come out of the stupidity because the Biblical
creationists never wanted to fill the gap with their god.
;
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of
the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that
because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam Top
Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they must
have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life was #3
of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions of years
after the fine tuning of our solar system (#2) and over 8 billion
years after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of years would pass after
the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved among the
microorganism that had evolved after the origin of life. The
Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer, occurred
within a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. The
other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills the Top Six
gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE to tell you
how his god fills the origin of life gap.
;
"top six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years desperately >>> and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support for
Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so
dangerous'
is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no
purpose no
evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless
indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and
kills
it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the
deer, just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this
Darwinist
world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals,
apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly accepted >>> basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge
allows an
all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist
admits his
"crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad,
the man
desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has
his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard is he >>> wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good
and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver.
Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence, which
in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation. The
origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a city
with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein
machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information
contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a >>>>> unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even
close to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of
information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key
to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must
have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design. That
is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge
is one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain
in a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would
expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not
go extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died out. >>>>> What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and
evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA
molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course,
there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where
information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless
and blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >>>>> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So
it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit. So,
why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these
several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein >>>>> and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to
RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the
"central dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the
fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this
mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is
this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild
swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these
proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then
the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere,
somehow there had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise?
Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then
devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why it >>>>> is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil >>>>>>> record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated
to the dust bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts >>>>>>> to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws >>>> in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour willI wonder how many atheists Ron Dean knows well enough to have shared a
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:01:11?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >> >>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >> >>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based.
Classical Greeks and Romans?
picked out the parts of Jesus' teaching that suited them (ie lined up with their innate moral sentiments), and played down the bits that didn't.The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except that the moral standards are pretty clearly not derived from religious scriptures. The Jews had abolished capital punishment by the first century BC, even though it is prescribed in Deuteronomy for a variety of offenses. Christians have always
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
Now I must ask Ron to consider the morality of the group he sees himself
as a part of, which requires him to view outsiders as immoral. Is
*that* moral?
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>>>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws >>>>> in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >>> belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >>> to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
See Steven Pinker's _The Better
Angels of Our Nature_ for documentation of the surprising (it was to me,
at least) fact that morality, especially as measured by homicide, has >increased over the centuries. In my own lifetime, I have seen huge >advancements in treatment of racial minorities, LGBQ+, and women.
Granted, the increase is not montonic; for example, Trump, and
like-minded leaders in some other countries, have pushed some of the
advances back.
Railing against the immorality of the current generation, and seeing
that things were better in the past, goes back at least to Socrates.
But it is just one of many human biases.
The 10 Commandments are most notable for the press they get, usually (in
the U.S.) in a divisive context. Note that only six of the ten
commandments apply to non-Christians, and one of those (honor father and >mother) needs qualification for cases where one's parents are not
honorable. The Golden Rule works far better as a moral guide, not in
the least because it (or near variations of it) appears in multiple
religions and moral writings.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour willI wonder how many atheists Ron Dean knows well enough to have shared a
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
meal with. I wonder if he considers Mark Twain a moral reprobate.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:06:50 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:01:11?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >> >>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >> >> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >> >has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >> >belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >> >that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >> >to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >> >with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based.
Classical Greeks and Romans?OK, they had not one God but many Gods. I don't see how that affects
my point about "some God" or the effect that religious beliefs had on
their behaviour.
..
Anyway, I was thinking of much further back in time than that to
whatever point humans began to think intelligently.
picked out the parts of Jesus' teaching that suited them (ie lined up with their innate moral sentiments), and played down the bits that didn't.The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except that the moral standards are pretty clearly not derived from religious scriptures. The Jews had abolished capital punishment by the first century BC, even though it is prescribed in Deuteronomy for a variety of offenses. Christians have always
Again, I don't really get your point. Religious beliefs have changed
through time - so what? Various aspects of Darwin's original ideas
have been changed and enlarged since he published them but that
doesn't change the fact that the ToE came down from him.
(I'm not ignoring the fact that evolution was well recognised before
him but he was essentially the key starting point for what we now call
ToE).
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
Now I must ask Ron to consider the morality of the group he sees himself >> >as a part of, which requires him to view outsiders as immoral. Is
*that* moral?
RonO wrote:.
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to support your religious beliefs. The ID perps goal was to create a theocracy
where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid enough to
claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy that they believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted to go back
to a time when their religion was OK with things like Slavery. That is how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Your slanderous descriptions just might possibly fit certain extreme fundamentalist religious types, but you are wrong in applying this description to me..
I believe there is something out there that designed and setup a system
that was self governing and self determining. after which it departed.
I do not claim to know what it is. but the is sufficient. Whether it is Jewish,
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon or none of the above, I don't know.
Actually slavery is still practiced in the world, as is religion theocracy in the Middle East, based on the Koran and Mohammad's teachings.
I've been there! I do no want anything comparable of like this in the
USA.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell you if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
Was the resent school shootings right or wrong? I know before atheism
became more prominent there were no school shootings. IOW there
is no good or evil, no right or wrong only blind pitiless indifference.
It can only tell you things like when
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>>>>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >>>> has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >>>> belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >>>> that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >>>> to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been attacked by some members of that troop?
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Steven Pinker's _The Better
Angels of Our Nature_ for documentation of the surprising (it was to me,
at least) fact that morality, especially as measured by homicide, has
increased over the centuries. In my own lifetime, I have seen huge
advancements in treatment of racial minorities, LGBQ+, and women.
Granted, the increase is not montonic; for example, Trump, and
like-minded leaders in some other countries, have pushed some of the
advances back.
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
Railing against the immorality of the current generation, and seeing
that things were better in the past, goes back at least to Socrates.
But it is just one of many human biases.
There are some positive aspects to the morality of modern society but
there are also some negatives You mention Trump almost as an aside but
far from him being an exception, he is just one example of autocratic
misrule that has increasingly pervaded many parts of the world. I
think it is foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of
a time you are living through - that can only be done by historians of
the future.
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as >>>>>> to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not >>>>>>>>> give me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to >>>>>>>> me, that
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third >>>>>>>>> Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think >>>>>>>>>>> that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. >>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. >>>>>>>>>>> The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up >>>>>>>>>>> and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence >>>>>>>>>>> that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the
current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands >>>>>>>>>>> that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that >>>>>>>>>>> exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was >>>>>>>>>>> seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular
plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed >>>>>>>>>>> for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know >>>>>>>>>>> how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not >>>>>>>>>>> mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for
creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their >>>>>>>>>>> flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out >>>>>>>>>>> how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an >>>>>>>>>>> earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin >>>>>>>>>>> of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. >>>>>>>>>>> Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to
believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the >>>>>>>>>>> creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created
before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land >>>>>>>>>>> vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why >>>>>>>>>>> should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 >>>>>>>>>>> billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young >>>>>>>>>>> earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old >>>>>>>>>>> earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were >>>>>>>>>>> created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to
reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can >>>>>>>>>>> Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what >>>>>>>>>>> we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this >>>>>>>>>>> time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail >>>>>>>>> of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual >>>>>>>>> algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than >>>>>>>>> I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to >>>>>>>>>> an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it >>>>>>>>>> still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've >>>>>>>>> had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a >>>>>>>>> verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it
through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world >>>>>>>>> outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to >>>>>>>>>> make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's >>>>>>>>>> challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and
suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't >>>>>>>>>> align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin >>>>>>>>>> of life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not
contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he >>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also
highlights the long history of scientific understanding of >>>>>>>>>> life on Earth and dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps"
denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author contends that >>>>>>>>>> creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling their
beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this >>>>>>>>>> evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition,
losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some
circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the >>>>>>>>> word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face >>>>>>>>> value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made >>>>>>>>> no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For
example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain >>>>>>>> the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as >>>>>>>> evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the >>>>>>>> "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies >>>>>>>> to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>>>>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >>>>>>>> evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to
wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: >>>>>>>> arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location,
where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to
how or where
new species came from.
answers as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this
in order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or
dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the >>>> only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that
the whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your religious
beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above. Just
because you never reference your religious beliefs is part of the
stupid and dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you
present is literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless
creationists rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than as
bait to gain support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do you
know of a single instance where the ID perps have given the rubes the
promised ID science? What have the rubes always been given instead
for over 2 decades? The ID perps admitted in their initial mission
statement that their purpose was to get religion back into national
politics even as they lied about the ID scam having nothing to do
with their religious beliefs. They even had God and Adam depicted in
their logo. Paley was more honest using the same design arguments,
and called it natural theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support
the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do
most of the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could not
deal with the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and rational
reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will never
support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top Six
design gaps is not the biblical god that most IDiotic type
creationists want to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be
more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing.
Pretending that what you are doing is not about defending your
religious beliefs is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been.
Kalk and Bill are exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and
lie to themselves about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality. It
is science that you need to deny already because that evolutionary
gap has been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID perps like Behe
and Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap denial wasn't
going to change the fact of biological evolution. If the origin of
life gap or the Cambrian explosion gap was filled with some
intelligent designer it would just be more science for you to deny
because of your religious beliefs. You should have used my links to
the Reason to Believe old earth creationists that claim to be IDiots
and see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They know that the
origin of life over 3 billion years ago is not mentioned in the
Bible, and they can't deal with things like the Cambrian explosion
that occurred within a 25 million year time period over half a
billion years ago because it means that sea creatures were created
before land plants. That is not what is written in the Bible.
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists, and
when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this
universe a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself about
it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book.
All the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would fit
into natural history that was supposed to be the creation. Paley
never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the eye
created in. Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the
earth, and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past
biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals. He
didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how the
creation had changed over time. Instead he focused on bits where he
didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just like the
ID perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that are not
supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist in. Paley
got away with it because the context was not fully understood, but
IDiots today do not have that excuse. When most IDiotic creationist
rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically obvious fact they
quit the ID scam. Some of them are still posting as Biblical
creationists, but the ID scam is no longer anything worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face
the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist
scam.
;
codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If
you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to support
your religious beliefs. The ID perps goal was to create a theocracy
where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid enough to
claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy that they
believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted to go back
to a time when their religion was OK with things like Slavery. That is
how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell you
if slavery was justified or not.
the heart starts beating in a fetus, or when brain activity begins. It
can allow us to understand that we do not live in a Biblical geocentric
young earth universe. You can't even use it to justify a lot of old
earth Biblical creationist notions. You should have gone to Reason To Believe using the links that I have given you to see how they have to
deny the science so that their Biblical interpretation might still be
viable.
Science can't determine if you are morally justified in lying about what
you are doing with respect to the god-of-the-gaps creationist denial.
Science can only tell you that trying to use science was a stupid thing
to do for IDiots. IDiots wanted to wear the mantle of science because
they understood that it worked, but it turned out that there wasn't any science that they wanted to do, so they had to start running the bait
and switch scam on hapless creationists rubes like you that had believed them. Absolutely no creationist has ever gotten the promised ID science from the ID perp. All they have gotten is an obfuscation and denial
switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID,
because the ID perps know that the rubes equate ID with their religious beliefs. That is how lame what you are doing has been since the ID
perps began running the bait and switch instead of giving the rubes the promised ID science.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is
just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just
what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof >>>> of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
;I know nothing about a Tour.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the
fossil record, just so they can claim that their designer did it.
IDiots just claim that they do not know how their designer did it.
The whole point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that
his designer did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to
do any IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is
responsible for the origin of life. The fact is that Tour never
wanted to fill the origin of life gap with his designer. He is
only using it like creationists have used it from the beginning.
All it is supposed to do is allow creationists to wallow in the
denial. Nothing positive is supposed to come out of the stupidity
because the Biblical creationists never wanted to fill the gap with
their god.
;
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of >>>>> the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that
because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam
Top Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they
must have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life
was #3 of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions
of years after the fine tuning of our solar system (#2) and over 8
billion years after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of years would
pass after the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved
among the microorganism that had evolved after the origin of life.
The Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer,
occurred within a 25 million year period over half a billion years
ago. The other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills
the Top Six gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE
to tell you how his god fills the origin of life gap.
;
"top six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years
desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support
for Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so
dangerous'
is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no
purpose no
evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless
indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and
kills
it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the
deer, just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this
Darwinist
world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals, >>>> apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly
accepted
basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge
allows an
all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist
admits his
"crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad,
the man
desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has >>>> his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard
is he
wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good
and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver.
Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence,
which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation.
The origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a
city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein
machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information
contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a >>>>>> unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even
close to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of
information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key
to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must
have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design.
That is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge >>>>>> is one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain >>>>>> in a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would
expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not
go extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died
out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and >>>>>> evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA
molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, >>>>>> there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where
information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless
and blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >>>>>> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So
it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit.
So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these >>>>>> several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein >>>>>> and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to >>>>>> RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the
"central dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the
fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this
mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is
this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild
swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these
proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then
the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere,
somehow there had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise?
Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then
devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why >>>>>> it is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil >>>>>>>> record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated >>>>>>>> to the dust bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts >>>>>>>> to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
RonO wrote:
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral >>> codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations >>>>>>> as to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for >>>>>>> answers as to how or where new species came from.
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not >>>>>>>>>> give me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to >>>>>>>>> me, that
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third >>>>>>>>>> Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think >>>>>>>>>>>> that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put >>>>>>>>>>>> up. The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put >>>>>>>>>>>> up and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything >>>>>>>>>>>> to support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the >>>>>>>>>>>> current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands >>>>>>>>>>>> that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a >>>>>>>>>>>> very long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that >>>>>>>>>>>> exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over >>>>>>>>>>>> 3 billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was >>>>>>>>>>>> seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular >>>>>>>>>>>> plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed >>>>>>>>>>>> for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> know how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not >>>>>>>>>>>> mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court >>>>>>>>>>>> told them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their >>>>>>>>>>>> flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out >>>>>>>>>>>> how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an >>>>>>>>>>>> earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3
billion years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin >>>>>>>>>>>> of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. >>>>>>>>>>>> Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to >>>>>>>>>>>> believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the >>>>>>>>>>>> creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created >>>>>>>>>>>> before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land >>>>>>>>>>>> vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why >>>>>>>>>>>> should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about >>>>>>>>>>>> the
existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young >>>>>>>>>>>> earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old >>>>>>>>>>>> earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were >>>>>>>>>>>> created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to
reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can >>>>>>>>>>>> Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what >>>>>>>>>>>> we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this >>>>>>>>>>>> time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail >>>>>>>>>> of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual >>>>>>>>>> algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than >>>>>>>>>> I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given >>>>>>>>>>> to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it >>>>>>>>>>> still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh >>>>>>>>>> I've had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in >>>>>>>>>> a verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it >>>>>>>>>> through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world >>>>>>>>>> outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to >>>>>>>>>>> make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James
Tour's challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life >>>>>>>>>>> and suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't align with the evidence supporting the concept of the >>>>>>>>>>> origin of life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may >>>>>>>>>>> not contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether >>>>>>>>>>> he can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also >>>>>>>>>>> highlights the long history of scientific understanding of >>>>>>>>>>> life on Earth and dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps" >>>>>>>>>>> denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author contends that >>>>>>>>>>> creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling their >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this >>>>>>>>>>> evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, >>>>>>>>>>> losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some
circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>> word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face >>>>>>>>>> value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made >>>>>>>>>> no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For
example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain >>>>>>>>> the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as >>>>>>>>> evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the >>>>>>>>> "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies >>>>>>>>> to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on >>>>>>>>> the
planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >>>>>>>>> evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to
wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: >>>>>>>>> arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location,
where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to >>>>>>>>> how or where
new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this >>>>>> in order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief
or dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If >>>>> it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that >>>>> the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that
the whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your
religious beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above.
Just because you never reference your religious beliefs is part of
the stupid and dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you
present is literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless
creationists rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than
as bait to gain support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do
you know of a single instance where the ID perps have given the
rubes the promised ID science? What have the rubes always been
given instead for over 2 decades? The ID perps admitted in their
initial mission statement that their purpose was to get religion
back into national politics even as they lied about the ID scam
having nothing to do with their religious beliefs. They even had
God and Adam depicted in their logo. Paley was more honest using
the same design arguments, and called it natural theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support
the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do
most of the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could
not deal with the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and
rational reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will
never support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top
Six design gaps is not the biblical god that most IDiotic type
creationists want to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be
more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing.
Pretending that what you are doing is not about defending your
religious beliefs is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been.
Kalk and Bill are exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and
lie to themselves about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality.
It is science that you need to deny already because that
evolutionary gap has been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID
perps like Behe and Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap
denial wasn't going to change the fact of biological evolution. If
the origin of life gap or the Cambrian explosion gap was filled with
some intelligent designer it would just be more science for you to
deny because of your religious beliefs. You should have used my
links to the Reason to Believe old earth creationists that claim to
be IDiots and see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They know
that the origin of life over 3 billion years ago is not mentioned in
the Bible, and they can't deal with things like the Cambrian
explosion that occurred within a 25 million year time period over
half a billion years ago because it means that sea creatures were
created before land plants. That is not what is written in the Bible. >>>>
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists,
and when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this
universe a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself
about it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book.
All the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would
fit into natural history that was supposed to be the creation.
Paley never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the
eye created in. Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the
earth, and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past
biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals.
He didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how
the creation had changed over time. Instead he focused on bits
where he didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just
like the ID perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that
are not supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist
in. Paley got away with it because the context was not fully
understood, but IDiots today do not have that excuse. When most
IDiotic creationist rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically
obvious fact they quit the ID scam. Some of them are still posting
as Biblical creationists, but the ID scam is no longer anything
worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and
face the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID
creationist scam.
;
you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have
killed millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not
laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are
concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to
support your religious beliefs. The ID perps goal was to create a
theocracy where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid
enough to claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy
that they believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted
to go back to a time when their religion was OK with things like
Slavery. That is how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Your slanderous descriptions just might possibly fit certain extreme fundamentalist religious types, but you are wrong in applying this description to me.
I believe there is something out there that designed and setup a system
that was self governing and self determining. after which it departed.
I do not claim to know what it is. but the is sufficient. Whether it is Jewish,
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon or none of the above, I don't know.
Actually slavery is still practiced in the world, as is religion theocracy
in the Middle East, based on the Koran and Mohammad's teachings.
I've been there! I do no want anything comparable of like this in the
USA.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
Was the resent school shootings right or wrong? I know before atheism
became more prominent there were no school shootings. IOW there
is no good or evil, no right or wrong only blind pitiless indifference.
It can only tell you things like when
the heart starts beating in a fetus, or when brain activity begins.
It can allow us to understand that we do not live in a Biblical
geocentric young earth universe. You can't even use it to justify a
lot of old earth Biblical creationist notions. You should have gone
to Reason To Believe using the links that I have given you to see how
they have to deny the science so that their Biblical interpretation
might still be viable.
Why address any of this to me, since it doesn't fit any of my hopes, expectations or needs.
Science can't determine if you are morally justified in lying about
what you are doing with respect to the god-of-the-gaps creationist
denial.
It's not god(s) of the gaps. The designer is _after_ the gaps. In the
gaps is where w find evolution trying to fill the gaps. For example:
the pre-Cambrian gap where evolution searched, for 150+ but
failed to observe the links back to supposed procurators. This evidence,
in and of itself, should be sufficient to falsify evolution. But it cannot because evolution is non-falsifiable. The designer comes in after this
gap where the appearance of most modern phyla is observe
Science can only tell you that trying to use science was a stupid
thing to do for IDiots. IDiots wanted to wear the mantle of science
because they understood that it worked, but it turned out that there
wasn't any science that they wanted to do, so they had to start
running the bait and switch scam on hapless creationists rubes like
you that had believed them. Absolutely no creationist has ever gotten
the promised ID science from the ID perp. All they have gotten is an
obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell them has
nothing to do with ID, because the ID perps know that the rubes equate
ID with their religious beliefs. That is how lame what you are doing
has been since the ID perps began running the bait and switch instead
of giving the rubes the promised ID science.
Face it, many people switched from religious faith to evolution, which
itself
is a faith, that even in the absence of observed evidence of
intermediate fossils,
they did exist in spite of unobserved predecessors. And faith in
evolutionary
change in the face of overwhelming stasis. So, this faith demonstrates that evolution is, in fact, a religion, a belief in the absence of proof; a secular religion
to be sure, but a religion.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is
just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just
what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has >>>>> become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category.
Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
;I know nothing about a Tour.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the
fossil record, just so they can claim that their designer did it.
IDiots just claim that they do not know how their designer did it. >>>>>> The whole point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that
his designer did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to
do any IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is
responsible for the origin of life. The fact is that Tour never
wanted to fill the origin of life gap with his designer. He is
only using it like creationists have used it from the beginning.
All it is supposed to do is allow creationists to wallow in the
denial. Nothing positive is supposed to come out of the stupidity >>>>>> because the Biblical creationists never wanted to fill the gap
with their god.
;
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most
of the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing
that because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID
scam Top Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that
they must have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of >>>>>> life was #3 of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of
millions of years after the fine tuning of our solar system (#2)
and over 8 billion years after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of
years would pass after the origin of life before the flagellum
(#4) evolved among the microorganism that had evolved after the
origin of life. The Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps
like Meyer, occurred within a 25 million year period over half a
billion years ago. The other IDiots quit the ID scam because the >>>>>> god that fills the Top Six gaps is not their Biblical god. Just
try to get MarkE to tell you how his god fills the origin of life
gap.
;
"top six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years
desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support
for Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so
dangerous'
is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no
purpose no
evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless
indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer
and kills
it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the
deer, just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this
Darwinist
world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals, >>>>> apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly
accepted
basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge
allows an
all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist
admits his
"crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad,
the man
desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has >>>>> his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard
is he
wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is
good and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver. >>>>> Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he >>>>> wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence,
which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation.
The origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a
city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein
machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information
contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This >>>>>>> is a
unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even
close to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of
information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key >>>>>>> to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must
have been.
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>>>>>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>>>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >>>>> has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >>>>> belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >>>>> that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >>>>> to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >thinking.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.) >>>
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
He took homicide as his standard because there are
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >ways.
Granted, there are probably some people who see the moral decline of >civilization because slaves, wives, witches, and homosexuals may no
longer be killed on a whim. May we both agree that those are outliers
who (unless they act on their values) may be ignored?
See Steven Pinker's _The Better
Angels of Our Nature_ for documentation of the surprising (it was to me, >>> at least) fact that morality, especially as measured by homicide, has
increased over the centuries. In my own lifetime, I have seen huge
advancements in treatment of racial minorities, LGBQ+, and women.
Granted, the increase is not montonic; for example, Trump, and
like-minded leaders in some other countries, have pushed some of the
advances back.
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
Railing against the immorality of the current generation, and seeing
that things were better in the past, goes back at least to Socrates.
But it is just one of many human biases.
There are some positive aspects to the morality of modern society but
there are also some negatives You mention Trump almost as an aside but
far from him being an exception, he is just one example of autocratic
misrule that has increasingly pervaded many parts of the world. I
think it is foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of
a time you are living through - that can only be done by historians of
the future.
You are probably right. But note that that applies to negative as well
as positive evaluations.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.) >>>
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is >widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >ways.
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
RonO wrote:<snip>
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral >> codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If
you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people. >> You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws >> in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to support your religious beliefs. The ID perps goal was to create a theocracy
where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid enough to
claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy that they believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted to go back
to a time when their religion was OK with things like Slavery. That is how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Your slanderous descriptions just might possibly fit certain extreme fundamentalist religious types, but you are wrong in applying this description to me.
I believe there is something out there that designed and setup a system
that was self governing and self determining. after which it departed.
I do not claim to know what it is. but the is sufficient. Whether it is Jewish,
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon or none of the above, I don't know.
Actually slavery is still practiced in the world, as is religion theocracy in the Middle East, based on the Koran and Mohammad's teachings.
I've been there! I do no want anything comparable of like this in the
USA.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell you if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
Was the resent school shootings right or wrong? I know before atheism
became more prominent there were no school shootings.
is no good or evil, no right or wrong only blind pitiless indifference.
It can only tell you things like when
the heart starts beating in a fetus, or when brain activity begins. It can allow us to understand that we do not live in a Biblical geocentric young earth universe. You can't even use it to justify a lot of old
earth Biblical creationist notions. You should have gone to Reason To Believe using the links that I have given you to see how they have to
deny the science so that their Biblical interpretation might still be viable.
Why address any of this to me, since it doesn't fit any of my hopes, expectations or needs.
Science can't determine if you are morally justified in lying about what you are doing with respect to the god-of-the-gaps creationist denial.
It's not god(s) of the gaps. The designer is _after_ the gaps. In the
gaps is where w find evolution trying to fill the gaps.
the pre-Cambrian gap where evolution searched, for 150+ but
failed to observe the links back to supposed procurators. This evidence,
in and of itself, should be sufficient to falsify evolution.
because evolution is non-falsifiable. The designer comes in after this
gap where the appearance of most modern phyla is observed.
Science can only tell you that trying to use science was a stupid thing
to do for IDiots. IDiots wanted to wear the mantle of science because they understood that it worked, but it turned out that there wasn't any science that they wanted to do, so they had to start running the bait
and switch scam on hapless creationists rubes like you that had believed them. Absolutely no creationist has ever gotten the promised ID science from the ID perp. All they have gotten is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID,
because the ID perps know that the rubes equate ID with their religious beliefs. That is how lame what you are doing has been since the ID
perps began running the bait and switch instead of giving the rubes the promised ID science.
Face it, many people switched from religious faith to evolution, which itself
is a faith, that even in the absence of observed evidence of
intermediate fossils,
they did exist in spite of unobserved predecessors. And faith in evolutionary
change in the face of overwhelming stasis. So, this faith demonstrates that evolution is, in fact, a religion, a belief in the absence of proof; a secular religion
to be sure, but a religion.
Ron Okimoto
<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:......
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even >>> rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that they might as well join the first group I mention.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcileThose are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are exceptions.
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against >another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat *everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilitiesWhat it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
beyond mankind.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again
and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes
it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlationThat or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as anything that happened in the past.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group. I'd go further and say it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is >widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >ways.
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general. There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:59:50 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
RonO wrote:
[snip for focus]
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth.� It is just
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has
always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has >>become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
You complain about others ignoring your questions. Just under two
weeks ago, I asked you this question:
"The leading proponents of Intelligent Design have all said their
designer is God - and not just any God but the Christian one. Do you
accept that you are an outlier in claiming that ID is not religious?"
You didn't answer my question then, any chance of you answering it
now?
[...]
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:56:13 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general. There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being
the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
With due respect to the moral flaws of Americans, I think it is not those flaws
that account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and Europe, but the ubiquity of guns.
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
RonO wrote:
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral >>> codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as >>>>>>> to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not >>>>>>>>>> give me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to >>>>>>>>> me, that
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third >>>>>>>>>> Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39?PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39?AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think >>>>>>>>>>>> that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. >>>>>>>>>>>> The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up >>>>>>>>>>>> and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the >>>>>>>>>>>> current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands >>>>>>>>>>>> that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that >>>>>>>>>>>> exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was >>>>>>>>>>>> seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular >>>>>>>>>>>> plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed >>>>>>>>>>>> for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know >>>>>>>>>>>> how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not >>>>>>>>>>>> mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their >>>>>>>>>>>> flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out >>>>>>>>>>>> how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an >>>>>>>>>>>> earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin >>>>>>>>>>>> of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. >>>>>>>>>>>> Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to >>>>>>>>>>>> believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the >>>>>>>>>>>> creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created >>>>>>>>>>>> before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land >>>>>>>>>>>> vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why >>>>>>>>>>>> should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young >>>>>>>>>>>> earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old >>>>>>>>>>>> earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were >>>>>>>>>>>> created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to
reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can >>>>>>>>>>>> Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what >>>>>>>>>>>> we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this >>>>>>>>>>>> time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail >>>>>>>>>> of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual >>>>>>>>>> algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than >>>>>>>>>> I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to >>>>>>>>>>> an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it >>>>>>>>>>> still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've >>>>>>>>>> had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a >>>>>>>>>> verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it >>>>>>>>>> through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world >>>>>>>>>> outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to >>>>>>>>>>> make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's >>>>>>>>>>> challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and >>>>>>>>>>> suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin >>>>>>>>>>> of life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not >>>>>>>>>>> contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he >>>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also
highlights the long history of scientific understanding of >>>>>>>>>>> life on Earth and dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps" >>>>>>>>>>> denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author contends that >>>>>>>>>>> creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling their >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this >>>>>>>>>>> evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition, >>>>>>>>>>> losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some
circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>> word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face >>>>>>>>>> value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made >>>>>>>>>> no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For
example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain >>>>>>>>> the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as >>>>>>>>> evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the >>>>>>>>> "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies >>>>>>>>> to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>>>>>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >>>>>>>>> evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to
wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: >>>>>>>>> arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location, >>>>>>>>> where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to >>>>>>>>> how or where
new species came from.
answers as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this >>>>>> in order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or >>>>> dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If >>>>> it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the >>>>> only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that
the whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your religious >>>> beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above. Just
because you never reference your religious beliefs is part of the
stupid and dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you
present is literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless
creationists rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than as >>>> bait to gain support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do you
know of a single instance where the ID perps have given the rubes the >>>> promised ID science? What have the rubes always been given instead
for over 2 decades? The ID perps admitted in their initial mission
statement that their purpose was to get religion back into national
politics even as they lied about the ID scam having nothing to do
with their religious beliefs. They even had God and Adam depicted in >>>> their logo. Paley was more honest using the same design arguments,
and called it natural theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support >>>> the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do >>>> most of the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could not >>>> deal with the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and rational
reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will never
support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top Six
design gaps is not the biblical god that most IDiotic type
creationists want to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be
more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing.
Pretending that what you are doing is not about defending your
religious beliefs is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been.
Kalk and Bill are exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and
lie to themselves about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality. It >>>> is science that you need to deny already because that evolutionary
gap has been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID perps like Behe >>>> and Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap denial wasn't
going to change the fact of biological evolution. If the origin of
life gap or the Cambrian explosion gap was filled with some
intelligent designer it would just be more science for you to deny
because of your religious beliefs. You should have used my links to >>>> the Reason to Believe old earth creationists that claim to be IDiots
and see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They know that the
origin of life over 3 billion years ago is not mentioned in the
Bible, and they can't deal with things like the Cambrian explosion
that occurred within a 25 million year time period over half a
billion years ago because it means that sea creatures were created
before land plants. That is not what is written in the Bible.
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists, and >>>> when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this
universe a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself about >>>> it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book.
All the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would fit >>>> into natural history that was supposed to be the creation. Paley
never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the eye
created in. Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the
earth, and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past
biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals. He >>>> didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how the
creation had changed over time. Instead he focused on bits where he >>>> didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just like the
ID perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that are not
supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist in. Paley
got away with it because the context was not fully understood, but
IDiots today do not have that excuse. When most IDiotic creationist
rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically obvious fact they
quit the ID scam. Some of them are still posting as Biblical
creationists, but the ID scam is no longer anything worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face >>>> the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist
scam.
;
you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws >>> in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are
concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to support
your religious beliefs. The ID perps goal was to create a theocracy
where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid enough to
claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy that they
believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted to go back
to a time when their religion was OK with things like Slavery. That is
how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Your slanderous descriptions just might possibly fit certain extreme >fundamentalist religious types, but you are wrong in applying this >description to me.
I believe there is something out there that designed and setup a system
that was self governing and self determining. after which it departed.
I do not claim to know what it is. but the is sufficient. Whether it is >Jewish,
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon or none of the above, I don't know.
Actually slavery is still practiced in the world, as is religion theocracy
in the Middle East, based on the Koran and Mohammad's teachings.
I've been there! I do no want anything comparable of like this in the
USA.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell you >> if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
Was the resent school shootings right or wrong? I know before atheism
became more prominent there were no school shootings. IOW there
is no good or evil, no right or wrong only blind pitiless indifference.
It can only tell you things like when
the heart starts beating in a fetus, or when brain activity begins. It
can allow us to understand that we do not live in a Biblical geocentric
young earth universe. You can't even use it to justify a lot of old
earth Biblical creationist notions. You should have gone to Reason To
Believe using the links that I have given you to see how they have to
deny the science so that their Biblical interpretation might still be
viable.
Why address any of this to me, since it doesn't fit any of my hopes, >expectations or needs.
Science can't determine if you are morally justified in lying about what
you are doing with respect to the god-of-the-gaps creationist denial.
It's not god(s) of the gaps. The designer is _after_ the gaps. In the
gaps is where w find evolution trying to fill the gaps. For example:
the pre-Cambrian gap where evolution searched, for 150+ but
failed to observe the links back to supposed procurators. This evidence,
in and of itself, should be sufficient to falsify evolution. But it cannot >because evolution is non-falsifiable. The designer comes in after this
gap where the appearance of most modern phyla is observed.
Science can only tell you that trying to use science was a stupid thing
to do for IDiots. IDiots wanted to wear the mantle of science because
they understood that it worked, but it turned out that there wasn't any
science that they wanted to do, so they had to start running the bait
and switch scam on hapless creationists rubes like you that had believed
them. Absolutely no creationist has ever gotten the promised ID science >> from the ID perp. All they have gotten is an obfuscation and denial
switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID,
because the ID perps know that the rubes equate ID with their religious
beliefs. That is how lame what you are doing has been since the ID
perps began running the bait and switch instead of giving the rubes the
promised ID science.
Face it, many people switched from religious faith to evolution, which >itself
is a faith, that even in the absence of observed evidence of
intermediate fossils,
they did exist in spite of unobserved predecessors. And faith in >evolutionary
change in the face of overwhelming stasis. So, this faith demonstrates that >evolution is, in fact, a religion, a belief in the absence of proof; a >secular religion
to be sure, but a religion.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >> >>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >> >>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >> >>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >> >>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >> >>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a >majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their >nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking >but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that >they might as well join the first group I mention.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are >exceptions.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has >historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the >Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again
and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes
it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.) >> >>>
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >> >>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >> >>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >> >>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >> >>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world
between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought >elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group >and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I'd go further and say
it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality >and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match >well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants >of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with >lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at
least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe
ways.
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that >discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so
many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:56:13?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:......
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark IsaakDon't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >> > >>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >> > >>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have
to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >> > >>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come
with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >> > >>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >> > >>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >> > >>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >> > >> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >> > >> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about >> it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their >> nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking >> but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that >> they might as well join the first group I mention.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they areBetween groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
exceptions.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it hasNor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the
Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again
and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes
it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars foughtI find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >> > >>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >> > >>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >> > >>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world
between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group. I'd go further and say >> it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality >> and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match >> well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants >> of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with
lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >> > >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >> > >ways.
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that
discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >> sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >> the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so
many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
With due respect to the moral flaws of Americans, I think it is not those flaws that account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and Europe, but the ubiquity of guns.
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
.A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even >> >>> rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >> >>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >> >> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >> >> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not aI’m fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you you
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about >it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next >large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are >exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I’d be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you consider such things as exceptions.
.Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has >historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the >Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again >and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your >religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes >it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
I made no claim about it being “an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion”, I was simply challenging Mark’s claim which seemed to be about religion in general..
.I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >> >>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world
between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism >>
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought >elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come.
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve –
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
.I'd go further and say
it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality
and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match >well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants >of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with >lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >> >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >> >ways.
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that >discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so >many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
I agree it’s not healthy but taking those things into account and the circumstances that have created them, I wouldn’t regard those people
as immoral.
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[snip]
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was
horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:[snip]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought
elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic.
levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve –
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit. And so is the notion that "morality" comes
into play after basic needs are met. If your morality says it's wrong to steal,
unless you are hungry, or unless you are feeding your family, it's still morality
when you are hungry.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:56:13 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: [...]......
The homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that
discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >> sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >> the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so
many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
With due respect to the moral flaws of Americans, I think it is not those flaws that account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and Europe, but the ubiquity of guns.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>>>>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >>>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >>>>>> has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >>>>>> belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >>>>>> that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >>>>>> to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >>>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >>>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.) >>>>
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >>>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >>>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >>>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >>>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
He took homicide as his standard because there are
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at
least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe
ways.
The homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
On 10/19/23 4:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:56:13 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: [...]......
The homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In >>> Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans >>> are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general. >> There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that >> discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining
sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being
the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so >> many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
With due respect to the moral flaws of Americans, I think it is not those flaws that account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and Europe, but the ubiquity of guns.I suggest it is a moral flaw to make gun ownership a higher priority
than people's lives.
(Yes, the subject is far more complex than my one-line answer suggests.
But I really cannot think of any better adjective than "reprehensible"
for the congresspeople who prohibited public health agencies from even researching gun safety, and the voters who supported them.)
(I shall try in the future to make replies relevant to the evolution of morality. This one has strayed.)
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide?
(THough I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their
life to helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage
in stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity.
I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better
yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity.
I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
....So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
On 10/16/2023 10:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:59 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What does morality mean to you? Obviously, you do not subscribe to moral
RonO wrote:
On 10/12/2023 9:50 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:You've got it! Scientists see a gap and look for explanations as >>>>>> to how or where new species came from. IDers do not search for
............................Google Groups is even more secretive than usual: it does not >>>>>>>>> give me your email address,This is something I keep seeing"god of the gaps". It occurs to >>>>>>>> me, that
so I can't tell whether you are Mark Isaak, MarkE, or a third >>>>>>>>> Mark whom I
don't recall encountering before.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:35:39 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:00:39 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This is slightly old news (Aug 25) but MarkE seems to think >>>>>>>>>>> that Tour's
origin of life gap denial is something worth discussing. >>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
For some weird reason Tour is challenging some scientists to >>>>>>>>>>> answer his
questions, and he claims that he will shut up if they put up. >>>>>>>>>>> The issue
has always been that Tour never shut up when he had to put up >>>>>>>>>>> and never
could. Origin of life denial is never going to do anything to >>>>>>>>>>> support
Tour's religious beliefs. Tour needs to put up his evidence >>>>>>>>>>> that his
god created life on this planet. Like MarkE, Tour likely >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't want
to believe in the designer that is responsible for the
current origin of
life gap that exists in this reality. Tour even understands >>>>>>>>>>> that there
is no ID science that he can do to support his religious >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, so why
would denial do anything for him?
The origin of life obviously happened, and it happened a very >>>>>>>>>>> long time
ago on an earth that was much different from the one that >>>>>>>>>>> exists today.
What is crazy is that Tour understands that his denial can't >>>>>>>>>>> apply to
what we know about how life evolved on this planet for over 3 >>>>>>>>>>> billion
years after that origin. It doesn't even matter if life was >>>>>>>>>>> seeded onto
this planet by any type of accident or design. Life evolved for >>>>>>>>>>> billions of years as microbial lifeforms. Multicellular
plants and
animals have only existed on this planet for around the last >>>>>>>>>>> billion years.
When it came time for the ID perps to put up or shut up they >>>>>>>>>>> started
running the bait and switch. No creationists rubes have ever >>>>>>>>>>> gotten the
promised ID science, and Tour claims that none ever existed >>>>>>>>>>> for them to
have anyway. Tour is the one that claims that he doesn't know >>>>>>>>>>> how to do
any ID science. God-of-the-gaps denial has been know to not >>>>>>>>>>> mean what
the creationists want it to mean since the Supreme court told >>>>>>>>>>> them that
what we haven't figured out yet, isn't any support for
creationist
Biblical claims. What creationist needed was something real and >>>>>>>>>>> positive that they could look at. They tried to create their >>>>>>>>>>> flood
geology program, but it failed. They could never figure out >>>>>>>>>>> how a
global flood could have occurred and left the evidence of an >>>>>>>>>>> earth
billions of years old. Luskin has put paid to that stupidity >>>>>>>>>>> when he
claimed to have researched sedimentary rocks around 3 billion >>>>>>>>>>> years old
for his PhD thesis research.
Gap denial is never going to amount to anything when
creationists like
Tour do not want to believe in the gods that fill those gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
The reason to believe IDiots account for a very early origin >>>>>>>>>>> of life by
claiming that there is a lot that the Bible doesn't mention. >>>>>>>>>>> Can a
Biblical creationists like Tour do that? The reason to
believe IDiots
can't seem to reinterpret the Bible enough to rearrange the >>>>>>>>>>> creation of
various lifeforms. Land plants still have to be created
before sea
creatures and sea mammals have to be created before land >>>>>>>>>>> vertebrates.
Can Tour do any better?
Really, Tour is the one that has to put up or shut up. Why >>>>>>>>>>> should
science have to know what happened to create life over 3 >>>>>>>>>>> billion years
ago on this planet? We already have figured out enough about the >>>>>>>>>>> existence of life on this planet to make the Biblical young >>>>>>>>>>> earth,
geocentric, flat-earth, "models" untenable. Even the old >>>>>>>>>>> earth "models"
have issues. The Bible claims that the sun and moon were >>>>>>>>>>> created on the
4th day after land plants (including the agriculturally relevant >>>>>>>>>>> angiosperms). The reason to believe IDiots have to
reinterpret the
Bible so that the sun and moon were just made visible. Can >>>>>>>>>>> Tour make
that reinterpretation?
Creationists like Tour have always needed to deal with what >>>>>>>>>>> we have
already figured out, not what we haven't figured out at this >>>>>>>>>>> time.
Ron Okimoto
Probable translation: I, Ron Okimoto, can't make head nor tail >>>>>>>>> of the scientific
content of Tour's challenges, so I will fall back on my usual >>>>>>>>> algorithm for talking about people whom I dearly hope to
be Biblically literalists and who care less about science than >>>>>>>>> I, Ron O, do
[a rather low bar to clear].
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to >>>>>>>>>> an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it >>>>>>>>>> still running here with these bot posts.
You have a great sense of humor. Thanks for the best laugh I've >>>>>>>>> had all week so far.
[I might still be saying this on Friday. Time will tell.]
Ron O, of course, has no sense of humor when the joke is on him. >>>>>>>>> He went on a rampage in which "Tour" got replaced by "you" in a >>>>>>>>> verbal salad
like the one he posted in the OP. Have you tried to run it
through "ChatGPT 3.5"
to see how well the resulting summary aligns with your world >>>>>>>>> outlook?
The technology has come a long way. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to >>>>>>>>>> make an assessment of the post above:
"The argument presented appears to be critical of James Tour's >>>>>>>>>> challenge to scientists regarding the origin of life and
suggests that his denial of certain scientific aspects doesn't >>>>>>>>>> align with the evidence supporting the concept of the origin >>>>>>>>>> of life. The author argues that Tour's challenge may not
contribute to his religious beliefs and questions whether he >>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence for his claims. The argument also
highlights the long history of scientific understanding of >>>>>>>>>> life on Earth and dismisses the idea of "God-of-the-gaps"
denial as inadequate. Ultimately, the author contends that >>>>>>>>>> creationists like Tour should focus on reconciling their
beliefs with established scientific knowledge."
With all the bad news around AI, it's refreshing to see this >>>>>>>>>> evidence of progress: much less verbosity and repetition,
losing the gratuitous insults, and now even some
circumspection with the use of "appears to be".
Great summary. Too bad it sheds no light on the meaning of the >>>>>>>>> word "denial" when it is modified by the
phrase "God-of-the-gaps". Worse yet, it seems to take at face >>>>>>>>> value the claim of Tour having indulged
in denial about "certain scientific aspects" which Ron O made >>>>>>>>> no attempt to identify.
this is
not where we find gods, but rather _after_ the gaps. For
example: the gap
before the Cambrian explosion. This is where we find
_evolution_trying
to find
evidence to fill this gap, or searching for excuses to explain >>>>>>>> the gap.
It's after
the gap one finds multiple organisms, and this could be seen as >>>>>>>> evidence of
inteligent design.
ID makes no effort to explain how these phyla came about, but the >>>>>>>> "explosion" can be seen as _evidence_ for ID. And this applies >>>>>>>> to most
species,
according to the late S.J. Gould and S.Eldredge, are found
abruptly in
strata,
(punctuation) remain a state of _stasis_ during their tenure on the >>>>>>>> planet, then
they disappear. I realize that Gould and Eldredge were devoted >>>>>>>> evolutionist,
but they were dedicated to "following the evidence," to
wherever, it
took them.
This gap is where we find evolution, searching for explanation: >>>>>>>> arguing that
evolution occurred elsewhere and migrating to the location,
where they are
found. Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to
how or where
new species came from.
answers as to how or where new species came from.
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this
in order to support your religious beliefs?
;
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or
dogma
in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the >>>> only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
That is how you are lying about what you are doing. You know that
the whole reason for your IDiotic denial is to support your religious
beliefs, but you need to lie about it like you do above. Just
because you never reference your religious beliefs is part of the
stupid and dishoest creationist ID scam. The stupidity that you
present is literally used to run the bait and switch scam on hapless
creationists rubes like yourself. ID is used as nothing more than as
bait to gain support for the ID perps political stupidity. Do you
know of a single instance where the ID perps have given the rubes the
promised ID science? What have the rubes always been given instead
for over 2 decades? The ID perps admitted in their initial mission
statement that their purpose was to get religion back into national
politics even as they lied about the ID scam having nothing to do
with their religious beliefs. They even had God and Adam depicted in
their logo. Paley was more honest using the same design arguments,
and called it natural theology.
You should be more honest. Paley's design argument does not support
the existence of the Biblical god. MarkE understands this and so do
most of the creationists that are now exIDiots because they could not
deal with the Top Six. There is absolutely no honest and rational
reason to keep pushing the IDiotic stupidity when it will never
support your religious beliefs. The god that fills the Top Six
design gaps is not the biblical god that most IDiotic type
creationists want to believe in. Any IDiotic success would just be
more science to deny.
You should stop lying to yourself about what you are doing.
Pretending that what you are doing is not about defending your
religious beliefs is as stupid and dishonest as it has always been.
Kalk and Bill are exIDiots because they could no longer pretend and
lie to themselves about reality like you still do.
The dispute that you have with evolution is part of this reality. It
is science that you need to deny already because that evolutionary
gap has been filled and is just a fact of nature. ID perps like Behe
and Denton told you decades ago that the IDiotic gap denial wasn't
going to change the fact of biological evolution. If the origin of
life gap or the Cambrian explosion gap was filled with some
intelligent designer it would just be more science for you to deny
because of your religious beliefs. You should have used my links to
the Reason to Believe old earth creationists that claim to be IDiots
and see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They know that the
origin of life over 3 billion years ago is not mentioned in the
Bible, and they can't deal with things like the Cambrian explosion
that occurred within a 25 million year time period over half a
billion years ago because it means that sea creatures were created
before land plants. That is not what is written in the Bible.
Really, the Top Six really is that bad for Biblical creationists, and
when they were given in their order of their occurrence in this
universe a lot of the IDiots left posting to TO quit the ID scam.
This is your reality, and you should not keep lying to yourself about
it.
Paley understood this. He knew that astronomy did not support a
Biblical creation, but he down played it in one chapter of his book.
All the other aspects were taken out of context of how they would fit
into natural history that was supposed to be the creation. Paley
never dealt with issues like in what ancient biosphere was the eye
created in. Paley already was aware of the ancient age of the
earth, and likely understood the evidence for the existence of past
biospheres that were composed of whole different sets of animals. He
didn't like the explanations for the ancient lifeforms and how the
creation had changed over time. Instead he focused on bits where he
didn't have to deal with their evolutionary context. Just like the
ID perps use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial that are not
supposed to be dealt with in the context that they exist in. Paley
got away with it because the context was not fully understood, but
IDiots today do not have that excuse. When most IDiotic creationist
rubes had their faces rubbed in that tragically obvious fact they
quit the ID scam. Some of them are still posting as Biblical
creationists, but the ID scam is no longer anything worth supporting.
You need to stop lying to yourself about what you are doing, and face
the same reality that made the other IDiots quit the ID creationist
scam.
;
codes of right and wrong, good or evil fair-play, truth, honesty. If
you did
you would not be bring these false charges against me and other people.
You don't any conscience any since of guilt. Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food.
Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke no laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Understanding nature has nothing to do with the morality that you are concerned about. It is just a tragically lame excuse to try to support
your religious beliefs.
where there Biblical values would shine, they were stupid enough to
claim that they wanted to restore the Christian theocracy that they
believed this nation was founded under. They really wanted to go back
to a time when their religion was OK with things like Slavery. That is
how tragically lame your moral values stupidity is.
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell you
if slavery was justified or not. It can only tell you things like when
the heart starts beating in a fetus, or when brain activity begins. It
can allow us to understand that we do not live in a Biblical geocentric
young earth universe. You can't even use it to justify a lot of old
earth Biblical creationist notions. You should have gone to Reason To Believe using the links that I have given you to see how they have to
deny the science so that their Biblical interpretation might still be
viable.
Science can't determine if you are morally justified in lying about what
you are doing with respect to the god-of-the-gaps creationist denial.
Science can only tell you that trying to use science was a stupid thing
to do for IDiots. IDiots wanted to wear the mantle of science because
they understood that it worked, but it turned out that there wasn't any science that they wanted to do, so they had to start running the bait
and switch scam on hapless creationists rubes like you that had believed them. Absolutely no creationist has ever gotten the promised ID science from the ID perp. All they have gotten is an obfuscation and denial
switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID,
because the ID perps know that the rubes equate ID with their religious beliefs. That is how lame what you are doing has been since the ID
perps began running the bait and switch instead of giving the rubes the promised ID science.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the..
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth. It is
just boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just
what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof >>>> of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
;I know nothing about a Tour.
ID perps like Sternberg have been identifying the gaps in the
fossil record, just so they can claim that their designer did it.
IDiots just claim that they do not know how their designer did it.
The whole point of Tour's origin of life denial is to claim that
his designer did it. Tour just claims that he doesn't know how to
do any IDiotic science that would demonstrate that his god is
responsible for the origin of life. The fact is that Tour never
wanted to fill the origin of life gap with his designer. He is
only using it like creationists have used it from the beginning.
All it is supposed to do is allow creationists to wallow in the
denial. Nothing positive is supposed to come out of the stupidity
because the Biblical creationists never wanted to fill the gap with
their god.
;
I have no idea as to why you are so obsessed with these so called
You should understand why the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. Most of >>>>> the IDiotic creationists that supported the ID scam quit doing that
because the ID perps were stupid enough to feed them the ID scam
Top Six best god-of-the-gaps stupidity in their order that they
must have logically occurred in this universe. The origin of life
was #3 of the Top Six and would have occurred hundreds of millions
of years after the fine tuning of our solar system (#2) and over 8
billion years after the Big Bang (#1). Billions of years would
pass after the origin of life before the flagellum (#4) evolved
among the microorganism that had evolved after the origin of life.
The Cambrian explosion (#5) according to ID perps like Meyer,
occurred within a 25 million year period over half a billion years
ago. The other IDiots quit the ID scam because the god that fills
the Top Six gaps is not their Biblical god. Just try to get MarkE
to tell you how his god fills the origin of life gap.
;
"top six".
The gaps is where we find evolution for the past 150 + years
desperately
and hopelessly searching for justification, evidence and support
for Charles
Darwin's insane and extremely dangerous idea. The reason it's so
dangerous'
is because it incurs atheism which says there is no design, no
purpose no
evil, no good, no right no wrong, nothing, but blind pitiless
indifference.
One can observe this in the natural world. A lion catches a deer and
kills
it. There is no concern or question about rights to life for the
deer, just
blind pitiless indifference. So, where does mankind stand in this
Darwinist
world? Lets face it, humans descended from animals, so we are animals, >>>> apes to be exact. Where's there is no good, no bad, no commonly
accepted
basis for morality, what happens when young woman is raped and the
rapist is brought o trial. His atheist attorney and atheist Judge
allows an
all atheist jury selected and sets in the judgement. The rapist
admits his
"crime".
The attorney on the defense, for his man there is no good no bad,
the man
desperately desired to reproduce and she was available. The rapist has >>>> his own concept as to what is right and wrong, so by what standard
is he
wrong? How is she different from the deer the lion killed?
I believe there is morality, and a lawgiver. Therefore there is good
and bad,
there is right and wrong according to the laws given by the lawgiver.
Consider Stalin an atheist who had millions of people killed. Was he
wrong - why?
Ron Okimoto
;Idest come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence,
which in most
cases, the intelligent design theory is the _best_ explanation.
The origin of
life is one case in point.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex. Like a
city with many
10's of thousands of enzymes, organelles, membranes and protein
machines
carrying out complex actions, all controlled by information
contained in DNA.
This DNA molecule reproduces itself with 99.9999% accuracy. This is a >>>>>> unique characteristic in the natural world. Nothing comes even
close to such
exactness as cellular self-reproduction.
DNA is information, where or how did the immense amount of
information
within the cortex of the cell come about? "The present is the key
to the past".
And at present, information always comes from mind. So, it must
have been.
in the past.
Another set of fact can be interpreted as evidence for Design.
That is the fact
that the fossil record, according to the late S.J. and N. Eldredge >>>>>> is one where
most new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, then remain >>>>>> in a state of
_stasis_during their tenure on the planet; followed by sudden
disappearance
from the record. This is exactly what intelligent design would
expect to find.
Of course there were exceptions to the rule, the few that did not
go extinct. It
should be remembered that 99% of all species that ever lived died
out.
What were some of the 1% of organisms that survived reproduced and >>>>>> evolved
into living modern species. Certainly, among the survivors, would
include the
numerous so called "living fossils" that changed little or none.
It's rarely mentioned in TO discussions and virtually unknown in
public circles
and few if any Idest know anything regarding this topic. I'm in
reference to the
proof reading and repair mechanisms that's built into the DNA
molecule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODsBTJ1KZY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag
This is utterly incredible. No one knows, beyond doubt, of course, >>>>>> there are
theories and hypothesis as to how life started or where
information in cells
originated. In this mindless, purposeless, careless, thoughtless
and blind
universe what "Cared" whether or not DNA had mutations. Indeed, it's >>>>>> random mutations and natural selection that drives evolution, So
it's the
fittest that survive and natural selection weeds out the unfit.
So, why did
a mindless, careless nature "see" a purpose for and "design" these >>>>>> several
(5) proofreading and repair mechanisms. After RNA expresses protein >>>>>> and the body, organs, limbs etc are formed, Information from DNA to >>>>>> RNA to protein is a one way street. So, if according to the
"central dogma"
there is no possible way for DNA to "know" anything about the
fitness or
lack of fitness regarding organisms expressed by mRNA. In this
mindless,
careless universe the DNA is blind to it's final results. So, is
this is the case
there's nothing that keeps DNA from countless, unlimited wild
swings of
massive numbers of random mutation.
As far as I'm concerned, this strongly implies forethought,
purpose, plan
and deliberate design. There's no reason to think these
proofreading and
repair systems just happened. If it was not purpose and plan then
the only alternative is, it was purely accidental. But somewhere,
somehow there had to be purpose.
How exactly did these 5 proofreading and repair mechanisms arise?
Why and how could random mutations detect faulty mutation then
devise (solutions) >> through random
mutations and natural selection?
- that's because they are not doing science. Indeed that's why >>>>>> it is obvious that their agenda is not scientific.
;
It's not that G & E discovered this characteristic in the fossil >>>>>>>> record. I was known in Darwin's time, but it had been relegated >>>>>>>> to the dust bowl of history. And even today there's been efforts >>>>>>>> to explain away this observation.
What is the difference between explaining and explaining away?
Peter Nyikos
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity.
I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better
yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
On 10/19/23 4:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:56:13 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
......The homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In >>>> Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general. >>> There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that
discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >>> sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >>> the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so >>> many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
With due respect to the moral flaws of Americans, I think it is not
those flaws that account for the difference in homicide rates between
the US and Europe, but the ubiquity of guns.
I suggest it is a moral flaw to make gun ownership a higher priority
than people's lives.
(Yes, the subject is far more complex than my one-line answer suggests.
But I really cannot think of any better adjective than "reprehensible"
for the congresspeople who prohibited public health agencies from even researching gun safety, and the voters who supported them.)
(I shall try in the future to make replies relevant to the evolution of morality. This one has strayed.)
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something >>>>>> you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed >>>>>> millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism
versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >>>> has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He >>>> belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely)
which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >>>> that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans >>>> to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another
person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been attacked by some members of that troop?
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Steven Pinker's _The Better
Angels of Our Nature_ for documentation of the surprising (it was to me,
at least) fact that morality, especially as measured by homicide, has
increased over the centuries. In my own lifetime, I have seen huge
advancements in treatment of racial minorities, LGBQ+, and women.
Granted, the increase is not montonic; for example, Trump, and
like-minded leaders in some other countries, have pushed some of the
advances back.
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
Railing against the immorality of the current generation, and seeing
that things were better in the past, goes back at least to Socrates.
But it is just one of many human biases.
There are some positive aspects to the morality of modern society but
there are also some negatives You mention Trump almost as an aside but
far from him being an exception, he is just one example of autocratic
misrule that has increasingly pervaded many parts of the world. I
think it is foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of
a time you are living through - that can only be done by historians of
the future.
The 10 Commandments are most notable for the press they get, usually (in
the U.S.) in a divisive context. Note that only six of the ten
commandments apply to non-Christians, and one of those (honor father and
mother) needs qualification for cases where one's parents are not
honorable. The Golden Rule works far better as a moral guide, not in
the least because it (or near variations of it) appears in multiple
religions and moral writings.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour willI wonder how many atheists Ron Dean knows well enough to have shared a
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
meal with. I wonder if he considers Mark Twain a moral reprobate.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:36:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell >>>>> you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity. >>> I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better
yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
They killed a lot of people. Do you really need God to tell you that mass murder is wrong?
And again, I stress that homicide is the *only* indicator of morality,^not
just that it is an important one.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell >>>> you if slavery was justified or not.
;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity.
I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better >> yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell
you if slavery was justified or not.
;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:31:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell >>>>> you if slavery was justified or not.
t;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other
hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity. >>> I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better >>> yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
<sigh> Exactly what did Stalin and Mao say about ID, ToE, OoL,
Creationism, Cambrian Explosion, Tour's 60 day challenge, and/or any
other topic in this thread/topic you obfuscated with atheism and
morality?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but >>>> IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a >>> Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was
horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough >>> to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
On 10/19/23 1:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind, >>>>>>>>> what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >>>>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution >>>>>>> has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief >>>>>>> that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >>>>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >>>>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >>>>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >>>> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >>>> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Yes. The popularity of the attitude of "raze Gaza to the ground", and
the actions that aren't so far from that, show that the Israelis are
reacting with emotion more than rational thought. We saw the same thing
in the US after 9/11, leading to a war that did far more damage to the
US than the terrorist attack itself did.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
As I said, the absolute statement is an oversimplification.
But as to
the refugees, remember that most of them are refugees in the first place
as a result of between-group hostilities within their nations of origin.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
You describe the ideal, and I agree that it is a good ideal. But it is
not what people do in reality.
The instances of warfare and genocide in
holy books are there not only because they were part of people's lives,
but because they were an *accepted* part of people's lives.
Humans have several instinctive behaviors that make them tend to act
morally in small groups and with people they know, but those instincts
do not extend to out-groups. To behave morally to not-your-brother
requires extra thought.
Not everyone puts in that extra thought, and
often there are other forces (e.g. negative stereotypes or time
pressures) which work against it.
(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >>>>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.) >>>>>
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed >>>>>> in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >>>>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >>>>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially >>>>>> the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world
between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
You need to read Pinker's book before you criticize it. He covers a lot
more than international conflict.
He took homicide as his standard because there are
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >>> least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >>> ways.
The homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I don't think morality scales quite like that, but yes, I think that
shows USians being (on average) less moral than Europeans.
And again, I stress that homicide is the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
.I�m fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even >> >> >>> rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >> >> >>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >> >> >> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >> >> >> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about >> >it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I�d be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
If you were previously on the side of Israel
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I >say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those >who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say >it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies? >The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people >continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
Further, people tend to defend their hot take and reject ANY calls to stop >and think. People tend to dislike it when their hot take is questioned, including
disliking questioning their own hot takes. There exists an evolutionary reason >for that --- it takes energy, consumes time, and often produces little gain.
.Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has
historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the
Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again
and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes >> >it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
I made no claim about it being �an essential and intrinsic aspect of.
religion�, I was simply challenging Mark�s claim which seemed to be
about religion in general.
I do believe Mark was claiming it was an intrinsic aspect of religion to
to generally rationalize pre-existing morality. That fits to many understandings
of religion as a cultural support structure. It's of the man creating god in >his image school.
.
.I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not >> >> >>> compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the
Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an
*increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron
Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral
standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define
the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth
as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world
between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism >> >>
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation
and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers"
like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that
a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war,
the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought
elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic.
levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve �
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit.
And so is the notion that "morality" comes
into play after basic needs are met. If your morality says it's wrong to steal,
unless you are hungry, or unless you are feeding your family, it's still morality
when you are hungry.
.
.I'd go further and say
it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality
and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match >> >well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants >> >of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with >> >lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is
widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at >> >> >least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe >> >> >ways.
Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans
are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general. >>
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that
discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining >> >sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being >> >the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so
many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
I agree it�s not healthy but taking those things into account and the
circumstances that have created them, I wouldn�t regard those people
as immoral.
I have no such qualms. People who love their guns more than their neighbors >are immoral. And there are some who I think love their guns more than their >own family. I'm pressed to find that anything other than immoral.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can'tThis in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
their actions.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:[snip]
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>
.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic
levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit.
Are you dismissing Malows ideas?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
.I’m fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >> >> >thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very >> >> carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next >> >large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >> >> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >> >> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >> >> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I’d be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
.If you were previously on the side of Israel
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say >it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people >continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
There are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept.
that there is a “right” and a “wrong” – that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an awareness of God.
The second issue is what category of right are wrong that specific.
issues belong to. That changes through time and is immediately
affected by the circumstances in which people find themselves. People
here have from time to time reminded me that the primary reason I am a Catholic is that I was born and brought up as one. The same principle applies to our views on Israel. I suspect that right now there is very little difference between you and me regarding Israel; we both think
that what Hamas did was entirely immoral but that what the Israelis
are doing in Gaza is also immoral. That, however, is us looking on
from the outside. If you had been born a Palestinian in Gaza and me a
Jew in Israel, then the chances are that whilst you might not like
some of the things that Hamas did to people in their attack, you would regard them as fundamentally justified in waging war on Israel and
that whilst I might not like the collateral damage to innocent
civilians in Gaza, I would see it as an acceptable cost of wiping out
Hamas.
.Further, people tend to defend their hot take and reject ANY calls to stop >and think. People tend to dislike it when their hot take is questioned, including
disliking questioning their own hot takes. There exists an evolutionary reason
for that --- it takes energy, consumes time, and often produces little gain.
That is true of some people but not all people. If it were true of all people, or even the overwhelming majority, then slavery would never.
have been abolished in the USA.
..Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has >> >historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the >> >Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again >> >and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes
it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
I made no claim about it being “an essential and intrinsic aspect of.
religion”, I was simply challenging Mark’s claim which seemed to be >> about religion in general.
I do believe Mark was claiming it was an intrinsic aspect of religion to >to generally rationalize pre-existing morality. That fits to many understandings
of religion as a cultural support structure. It's of the man creating god in
his image school.
And I see that argument as people trying to rationalise away religion because they just don’t like it..
..I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the >> >> >>> Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous >> >> >>>> generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an >> >> >>> *increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron >> >> >> Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral >> >> >> standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define >> >> >> the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth >> >> as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world >> >> between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation >> >> and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers" >> >> like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that >> >> a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war, >> >> the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought >> >elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic.
levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve –
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit.
Are you dismissing Malow’s ideas?.
.And so is the notion that "morality" comes
into play after basic needs are met. If your morality says it's wrong to steal,
unless you are hungry, or unless you are feeding your family, it's still morality
when you are hungry.
Priorities change in response to threat. I am totally anti-violence.
but if someone broke into our house tonight and attempted to rape my
wife or daughter, I would have no hesitation in grabbing a knife and stabbing him. Should my sense of moralty in regard to violence and
killing people have stopped me from stabbing him?
..I'd go further and say
it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality
and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match
well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants
of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with
lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In >> >> Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans >> >> are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is >> >> >widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at
least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe
ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that >> >discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining
sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being
the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so >> >many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
I agree it’s not healthy but taking those things into account and the >> circumstances that have created them, I wouldn’t regard those people
as immoral.
I have no such qualms. People who love their guns more than their neighbors >are immoral. And there are some who I think love their guns more than their >own family. I'm pressed to find that anything other than immoral.
I think we have to distinguish between actions and the reasons why.
people carry out those actions - the Christian precept of ‘hate the
sin but love the sinner’ comes to mind. At the risk of invoking
Goodwin, the German people brought Hitler to power in the 1930’s, does that mean they were evil people? Or going back to slavery, nobody
today would regard it as acceptable but does that mean that everyone
in the USA who owned slaves 200 years ago was immoral?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can'tThis in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
.Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettIt is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
<[email protected]> wrote:.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I’m fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you you >>>> seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central pointDon't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not aA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even >>>>>>>>> rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >>>>>>>>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >>>>>>>> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >>>>>>>> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >>>>>>> thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very >>>>>> carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza? >>>>>
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by >>>>> both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next >>>>> large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed >>>> by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it >>>>>> but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are >>>>> exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I’d be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say >>> it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people >>> continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a “right” and a “wrong” – that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an
awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea,
but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity.
To me those are the raw materials, which seem to be shared by lots of
social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of
morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and
debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody would think that anyway. But that does not mean that moral feelings, expressed as punishment of free loading or bonding over generosity, do
not exist in other animals or provide the substrate from which human morality evolved.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have
set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral
feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and
reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
.I’m fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >> >> >thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very >> >> carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next >> >large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >> >> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >> >> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >> >> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I’d be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say >it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people >continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a “right” and a “wrong” – that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an awareness of God.
The second issue is what category of right are wrong that specific
issues belong to. That changes through time and is immediately
affected by the circumstances in which people find themselves. People
here have from time to time reminded me that the primary reason I am a Catholic is that I was born and brought up as one. The same principle applies to our views on Israel. I suspect that right now there is very little difference between you and me regarding Israel; we both think
that what Hamas did was entirely immoral but that what the Israelis
are doing in Gaza is also immoral. That, however, is us looking on
from the outside. If you had been born a Palestinian in Gaza and me a
Jew in Israel, then the chances are that whilst you might not like
some of the things that Hamas did to people in their attack, you would regard them as fundamentally justified in waging war on Israel and
that whilst I might not like the collateral damage to innocent
civilians in Gaza, I would see it as an acceptable cost of wiping out
Hamas.
Further, people tend to defend their hot take and reject ANY calls to stop >and think. People tend to dislike it when their hot take is questioned, includinghave been abolished in the USA.
disliking questioning their own hot takes. There exists an evolutionary reason
for that --- it takes energy, consumes time, and often produces little gain. That is true of some people but not all people. If it were true of all people, or even the overwhelming majority, then slavery would never
And I see that argument as people trying to rationalise away religion because they just don’t like it..Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
What it tells you can be observed to be very different from what it has >> >historically told its adherents. I'll spare recounting stories from the >> >Crusades, or innumerable wars between Protestants and Catholics.
But you simply can't deny Mark's observations that the Old Testiment
is full of tribalistic morality. That same tribalism gets replayed again >> >and again in "christian" societies.
You may want to ascribe the more inclusive concept of "Us" to your
religion but if so then who is doing the cherry picking? Not that it
isn't a good cherry to pick, but it isn't historically common which makes
it a rather odd thing to claim as an essential and intrinsic aspect of religion.
I made no claim about it being “an essential and intrinsic aspect of.
religion”, I was simply challenging Mark’s claim which seemed to be >> about religion in general.
I do believe Mark was claiming it was an intrinsic aspect of religion to >to generally rationalize pre-existing morality. That fits to many understandings
of religion as a cultural support structure. It's of the man creating god in
his image school.
.Are you dismissing Malow’s ideas?
.I find Pinker's arguments interesting but far from convincing. It(Plus, I don't see Genesis standing out in moral terms, certainly not
compared with, say, the Gospels, the Analects of Confucius, or the >> >> >>> Egyptian Book of the Dead. To me, its main message is the glory of God.)
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous >> >> >>>> generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an >> >> >>> *increase* in better moral standards.
What's the difference between you making that correlation and Ron >> >> >> Deane correlating atheism with what he might regard as worse moral >> >> >> standards? You could start by defining *moral standard* Then define >> >> >> the metric by which you will measure increases or decreases.
See Pinker's book.
strikes me, for example, that his ideas are most warmly welcomed by
people like Bill Gates who, along with 7 other men own as much wealth >> >> as the planet's poorest 3.5 billion people
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
For clarification, that is not a criticism of Gates whom I regard
highly but he is an example of the massive divide in this modern world >> >> between those who have and those who have not.
There has also been a lot of criticism of his data and how he used it: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism
I also think that Pinker falls into the trap of confusing correlation >> >> and causation. There has been a decline in war between "superpowers" >> >> like those that dominated Europe for many centuries but I suspect that >> >> a lot of that is due to nuclear deterrence - even in the Ukraine war, >> >> the superpowers are restraining their support of Ukraine because of
the fear of starting a nuclear war. I also think that what is
happening in both Ukraine and Gaza right now is just as barbaric as
anything that happened in the past.
That or the superpowers adapted to just making money off of wars fought >> >elsewhere so that it was less inconvenient.
But you miss the point. The point is that there seemingly exists a foundational
morality innate to humans and primates that it is "good" to protect your group
and okay to exploit that which is outside your group.
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic.
levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve –
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit.
And so is the notion that "morality" comesPriorities change in response to threat. I am totally anti-violence
into play after basic needs are met. If your morality says it's wrong to steal,
unless you are hungry, or unless you are feeding your family, it's still morality
when you are hungry.
but if someone broke into our house tonight and attempted to rape my
wife or daughter, I would have no hesitation in grabbing a knife and stabbing him. Should my sense of moralty in regard to violence and
killing people have stopped me from stabbing him?
.
.I'd go further and say
it looks like it evolved because it mostly works but is sloppy and error prone.
So it's good enough but not perfect.
Now if you want to praise some religions, they have taken this root morality
and intellectually pressed for more expansive senses of the group.
This, along with some added trappings, produces a nice, approximately
self consistent ethos that is metastable but with enough stability to match
well enough to human life spans. But when you look around, you see variants
of nativism working to erode it to much more restricted senses of Us with
lots of Them.
He took homicide as his standard because there areThe homicide rate in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants is around 6.8. In >> >> Europe it is typically around 1. Does that mean that people Americans >> >> are roughly 7 times more immoral than Europeans?
good records of it through history, it is close to unambiguous, it is >> >> >widely condemned as immoral in many religions and cultures, and it is at
least plausibly a proxy for how people treat other people in less severe
ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, Europeans are, currently, much more moral than Americans in general.
There are many reasons. One is an American mythos of individualism that >> >discounts the need to be part of a social network. The second is a whining
sense of a stolen birthright. That's from a second set of myths about being
the Greatest Nation with some divine right to prosperity which leaves so >> >many people with a sense that they have been denied a birthright. It's not healthy.
I agree it’s not healthy but taking those things into account and the >> circumstances that have created them, I wouldn’t regard those people
as immoral.
I have no such qualms. People who love their guns more than their neighbors >are immoral. And there are some who I think love their guns more than their >own family. I'm pressed to find that anything other than immoral.I think we have to distinguish between actions and the reasons why
people carry out those actions - the Christian precept of ‘hate the
sin but love the sinner’ comes to mind. At the risk of invoking
Goodwin, the German people brought Hitler to power in the 1930’s, does that mean they were evil people? Or going back to slavery, nobody
today would regard it as acceptable but does that mean that everyone
in the USA who owned slaves 200 years ago was immoral?
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that moral advancement from the talkies?.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can'tThis in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
their actions.
The hierarchy of needs almost seems to say one cannot be moral unless
they are affluent enough to have all their basic needs met. Sure it
would be nice to have that sort of equitable society and socioeconomic deprivation may lead to desperation in certain horrific personal circumstances, but white collar crime and immorality is not unheard of.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 8:11:14 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[ slash and burn ]
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems.
kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters >> one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that >> moral advancement from the talkies?
I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to banning books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to dancing,
or empathy.
There are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
that there is a “right” and a “wrong” – that is actually what I was thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an awareness of God.
The second issue is what category of right are wrong that specific
issues belong to. That changes through time and is immediately
affected by the circumstances in which people find themselves. [...]
[...]
I do believe Mark was claiming it was an intrinsic aspect of religion to
to generally rationalize pre-existing morality. That fits to many understandings
of religion as a cultural support structure. It's of the man creating god in >> his image school.
And I see that argument as people trying to rationalise away religion
because they just don’t like it.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:46:53 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 1:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 9:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:31:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/17/23 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:44:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you this. We
decended from animals and we are animals ourselves. So, in your mind,
what makes our lives more important than animals we kill for food. >>>>>>>>>> Is it wrong to kill another person if he stands in the way of something
you want desperately. Why? Why was Stalin wrong to kill or have killed
millions
of people? Or was he wrong? I know its illegal, but Stalin broke not laws
in Russia. Was he wrong? Why?
Those are fair questions for a philosophical debate about atheism >>>>>>>>> versus religious belief but perhaps you would explain what they have >>>>>>>>> to do with science in general and evolution in particular?
The impression Ron Dean has given me is that his rejection of evolution
has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with tribalism. He
belongs to a certain tribe (some brand of Christianity, most likely) >>>>>>>> which consolidates its power by inculcating its members with the belief
that the people outside of it are immoral.
To answer Ron's question, the basis for morality is that it helps humans
to cooperate with one another, bringing the various benefits that come >>>>>>>> with cooperation. So obviously it is morally wrong to kill another >>>>>>>> person purely for one's own benefit, even if laws allow it.
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to >>>>>>> than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>>>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
A lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even >>>>>> rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species, >>>>>> but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and >>>>> wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been >>>>> attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Yes. The popularity of the attitude of "raze Gaza to the ground", and
the actions that aren't so far from that, show that the Israelis are
reacting with emotion more than rational thought. We saw the same thing
in the US after 9/11, leading to a war that did far more damage to the
US than the terrorist attack itself did.
You seem as determined as Ron Dean to tar lots of people with the same
brush. Regarding the Israelis (and Americans after 9/11), I don’t
regard it as particularly effective to draw generalised conclusions
about people’s intellectual capabilities on the basis of their emotive reaction to extremely traumatic events.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
As I said, the absolute statement is an oversimplification.
Assuming you are referring to your own original statement,
oversimplification is not an effective way of addressing complex
issues.
But as to
the refugees, remember that most of them are refugees in the first place
as a result of between-group hostilities within their nations of origin.
My point is about how people reacted to their needs, not what caused
those needs in the first place.
Nor does religion tell them to be. The Old Testament
has many examples of mass homicide justified by its being against
another group. So do the Koran and Mahabharata.
Again, you cherry-pick - my religion tells me that I should treat
*everyone* as my brother and also extends my moral responsibilities
beyond mankind.
You describe the ideal, and I agree that it is a good ideal. But it is
not what people do in reality.
Then your experience is very different from mine, I find most people
want to do ‘the right thing’; when they struggle to achieve it in practice, they recognise their shortcomings and try to do better.
The instances of warfare and genocide in
holy books are there not only because they were part of people's lives,
but because they were an *accepted* part of people's lives.
Humans have several instinctive behaviors that make them tend to act
morally in small groups and with people they know, but those instincts
do not extend to out-groups. To behave morally to not-your-brother
requires extra thought.
The ability to put in that “extra thought” is one of the things that distinguishes humans from other species.
Not everyone puts in that extra thought, and
often there are other forces (e.g. negative stereotypes or time
pressures) which work against it.
I struggle to find anything that *everyone* does, can you suggest
anything? We have to look at general trends and again our experience
may differ but I see many if not most people willing to put in that
extra thought.
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality, >> just that it is an important one.
So why don’t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one
that exclusively deals with USians.
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don�t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one
that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
On 10/19/23 9:46 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
^not
And again, I stress that homicide is the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
Left out a word.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:18:29 -0700, the following appeared<snip 1>
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:53:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<[email protected]>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-13 02:50:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Well?In that case, of what possible relevance is it? One might asOf course, you must realize I was not in reference to what was known >>>after 1945, but rather 145 years or so ago.Science has uncovered the fact that the cell, far from
the simple jelly like substance, is incredible complex.
Do you think you're telling us something we don't know? It has been
understood for at least one hundred years that the cell is not a simple >>>> jelly-like substance. Can you cite a single textbook since 1945 that
says that it is?
well cite what was "known" in 900AD Scandinavia about
lightning, that it was Thor throwing Mjollnir around.
<snip 3>No response?
...how did _nature_ with its mindless, purposeless, careless world >>>accidentallyThrough iterative changes via selection of improvements
originate this highly complex proofreading and repair protein machines. >>>You have no idea as to what steps or what procedures accomplished this. As >>>one person stated, I do know, how it happened - it evolved. Really, why >>>and how??
caused by selection and fixation of more viable variations,
mutational or otherwise. It was neither "accidental" nor
"random" beyond the initial variant; selection by improved
reproductive success is neither.
<snip 4>Nothing?...you just ignore everything. Obviously _you_ have no answers or >>>explanationIn science, theories aren't "guesses", but testable *and
You just trust other people somehow have the answers. They do not - only >>>guesses,
hypothesis and theories.
tested* hypotheses which have not been disproven, which
account for all known data, and which make testable
predictions.
I'm *sure* this has been pointed out to you, multiple times.
Perhaps you should write it on your hand...
Remove the "I guess" part; I'm no longer guessing aboutI guess you don't....not a single observed exception to Pasteur rule. The question isIOW the usual: "We don't know everything in the finest
when and how
and why did DNA proofreading an repair come about. No one knows!
detail, therefore we know nothing (and usually, therefore
Goddidit).". Don't you ever get tired of trying to pass off
this sort of garbage?
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:31:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't tell >>>>>> you if slavery was justified or not.
t;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the other >>>> hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by Christianity. >>>> I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw Christianity, or better >>>> yet all religion, to prevent people from sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
<sigh> Exactly what did Stalin and Mao say about ID, ToE, OoL,
Creationism, Cambrian Explosion, Tour's 60 day challenge, and/or any
other topic in this thread/topic you obfuscated with atheism and
morality?
IOW you refuse to condemn these dictators for murders. I understand.
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 8:11:14?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Excellent point. Pinker played up the importance of so-called rights >revolutions. If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete >revolutions cease operation.
[ slash and burn ]
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems >>> kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters.
one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that >>> moral advancement from the talkies?
I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to banning >> books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to dancing,
or empathy.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:13:07 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 8:11:14?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Excellent point. Pinker played up the importance of so-called rights
[ slash and burn ]
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems >>>> kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters.
one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that >>>> moral advancement from the talkies?
I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to banning
books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to dancing, >>> or empathy.
revolutions. If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete >> revolutions cease operation.
Banning books has much in common with using killfiles.
But all that aside your reply is really about Bob right?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:00 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
But all that aside your reply is really about Bob right?
Since you asked, no. You're welcome.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't>
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god, then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god, then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
This is not my argument. What got me concerned and bothered was the comment by Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist alive today. I was hoping
that someone would take issue with his statement about the universe we
live in.
Rather they took issue with me!
Lawyer Daggett wrote:..................................
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement madeWhy do you think that the truth of Dawkins' statement about the universe would mean there was no such thing as good or evil? I determine good and evil on the same basis that most people do - I react differently to good and evil. I feel negatively about
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:41:14 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Hear, hear!
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god, then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
This is not my argument. What got me concerned and bothered was the commentWhy take issue with it?
by Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist alive today. I was hoping
that someone would take issue with his statement about the universe we live in.
Rather they took issue with me!
I've had the privilege and honor of having visited most of the National Parks in
the United States, many of them before I turned 20, with repeat visits. They all
display the majesty of our little corner of the Universe.
One of my most profound early experiences was on a winter trip to Yosemite. A group of friends were Xcountry skiing in the Valley and skied down to the base
of El Capitan --- that towering edifice of solid granite. I'd been there before but
this was special, fresh snow, bright crisp day, facing that giant rock. My experience
is one I've heard others talk about independently as what they experienced at
the base of El Cap. You feel small and insignificant. You just don't matter.
And that feeling is completely liberating. All your problems, the things that may
be consuming you, frustrations, worries, desires --- they don't matter. El Cap
and the Universe don't care. Again, many have expressed the exact same sentiment
to me. Thing is, that doesn't make me worthless. It doesn't make my life pointless.
It frees me to build of my life what I will. And if I stumble along the way, the
Universe doesn't care and will go on. Value and meaning is up to me.
I feel bad for people who haven't experienced that liberation. The people I know
who have are good people, the ones you can count on when in need. And so I just don't see your distress at the idea that the Universe doesn't care. Caring is your job.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer >> who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected]Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that >>>>>>> the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is.
no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think
it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god
designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer >> who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don’t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one
that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except
the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
[email protected] wrote:[snip]
This is not my argument. What got me concerned and bothered was the comment by Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist alive today. I was
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no
god, then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
hoping
that someone would take issue with his statement about the universe we
live in.
Rather they took issue with me!
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean
they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough >>> I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a
rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they
dedicate their lives to helping other people.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
;
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that
the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which
also happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits,
the average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
their actions.
On 10/19/23 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that
the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which
also happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits,
the average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
Second, why do you ask me? If you have read my posts, you would have
seen that many of them deal with morality directly, so obviously I have
no basis for answering a question based on your assumption.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but >>>>> IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a >>>> Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was
horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough >>>> to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot
more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but >>>>> IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a >>>> Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was
horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough >>>> to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot
more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
On 10/19/23 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
;
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that
the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which
also happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits,
the average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
;
their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
Second, why do you ask me? If you have read my posts, you would have
seen that many of them deal with morality directly, so obviously I have
no basis for answering a question based on your assumption.
Ron Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you need a caring universe or loving god in order to be a moral person that’s entirely your shortcoming and not ours.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer >>> who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view >> The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? >> I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, right
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected]Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to
atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting
that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there.
is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think
it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god
designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his
view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Ron Dean <[email protected]> wrote:What do you not understand? I'm not "talking" about myself!
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you need a caring universe or loving god in order to be a moral person
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that the >>>>>>>>> only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his view >>> The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind >>> pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what >>> basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? >>> I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
that’s entirely your shortcoming and not ours.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and sub-particle
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, right
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] >>>> wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning >>>>>> their actions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>> atheism,
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which also >>>>>>>>> happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there.
is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think
it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god
designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In his
view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind >>> pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what >>> basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
in our bodies are from stars.
It's not what I think, this was a view expressed by Dawkins.Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis forOk on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
;
condemning their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Do good and evil exist outside of communities agreeing upon their social constructions of such “things”?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand nature. >>>>>>>> Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that
the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>> also happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>> the average atheist on the street is innocuous.
their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
Second, why do you ask me? If you have read my posts, you would have
seen that many of them deal with morality directly, so obviously I have
no basis for answering a question based on your assumption.
I mean in one regard Persians introduced
such a striking dichotomy into Second Temple Judaism which percolated as strong coffee into Jesusism. Satan himself as adversary didn’t become evil incarnate until the New Testament and especially the hallucinogenic Daniel inspired Revelation of Patmos John tripping balls on something or other.
I’d say good and evil are often too strong a binary and much exists along a gray toned spectrum. The Manichean viewpoint has distortion lensing.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and sub-particle
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4, [email protected] >>>> wrote:Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there.
is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I think
it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god
designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In
his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but
blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon
what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
in our bodies are from stars.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made >>>> by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there >>>>>> is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god
designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but
blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon
what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for anyone. So, why make the comment?
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made >>>>> by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there >>>>>>> is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but
blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon >>>>> what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for anyone. So, why make the comment?
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
anything wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if.
there is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way?
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
made
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In
his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should
expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but
blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality.
Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or
wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
On 21/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:
It's not what I think, this was a view expressed by Dawkins.Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis forOk on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything
wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
;
condemning their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
Citation needed.
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was >> pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to
atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
anything wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if.
there is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should
expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing,
but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality.
Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right
or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
anyone. So, why make the comment?
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:00 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Then why pray tell did you point it at me?
<[email protected]d> wrote:
But all that aside your reply is really about Bob right?
Since you asked, no. You're welcome.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with what Dawkins said.
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made >>>> by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there >>>>>> is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but >>>> blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon >>>> what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or >>>> wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for anyone. So, why make the comment?
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say. >>
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14?AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism byScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>> there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>> think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >>> anyone. So, why make the comment?
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of
atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." - >https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 19:22:47 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:00 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Then why pray tell did you point it at me?
<[email protected]d> wrote:
But all that aside your reply is really about Bob right?
Since you asked, no. You're welcome.
You're confused. Why should I "point it at you" if my "reply is really
about Bob"?
But since you asked, the sarcasm aside, your "all that aside" shows
you recognize the connections between your comments about "banning
woke books" and killfiling posts. You're welcome.
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
anything wrong?
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if.
there is no god,
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should
expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but >>>>>> blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality.
Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or >>>>>> wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for
anyone. So, why make the comment?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:36:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made >>>>>> by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>> his view
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there >>>>>>>> is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>>>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but >>>>>> blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon >>>>>> what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or >>>>>> wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for
anyone. So, why make the comment?
Even when you corrected the above to start "I'm", it's incomplete. Applicable to what? But cutting through things some, you seem to have a presumptive context and seem incapable of getting past it. So let's explain some likely context. There exist many people who think that there is purpose to the universe.
Some go so far as to say that everything happens for a reason. Others believe that there's some form of justice to the universe such that if some bad things
happen to you, something like karma will balance things out and have good things happen to balance it out. This isn't limited to theists. Some non-believers
have a deep need to find external purpose.
The quote you attribute to Dawkins says that he disagrees.
Earthquakes don't happen to punish sinful people. Asteroids don't impact planets
as part of a plan. The Universe is indifferent. It's a perverse misreading to interpret
that to mean that to mean people who are part of the Universe must also therefore
be indifferent. It boggles the mind to think that you would attempt to interpret it that way.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>> wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On >>>>>>>>>>>>> theScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in >>>>>>>>>>>>> noting that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly >>>>>>>>>>>>> admits, the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>> there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>> think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or >>>>>>>> died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
statement made
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today.
In his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing,
but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality.
Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
wrote was
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >>> anyone. So, why make the comment?
say.
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough >>>> I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google >>> of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a
rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to
whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they
dedicate their lives to helping other people.
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally >judge people you know nothing about?
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don�t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one
that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except
the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but >>>>>> IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a >>>>> Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough >>>>> to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is na�ve would contribute a lot
more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those
who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to
bias our view of the world at large.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many
of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation
that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your >comment.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person >cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:13:07 +0000, *Hemidactylus*So does not reading certain authors that bore you or searching for books by >filtering certain subject headings. Sarcasm tag.
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 8:11:14?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>Excellent point. Pinker played up the importance of so-called rights
[ slash and burn ]
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems >>>>> kinda right, but what of Pinker�s borrowed notion that reading characters >>>>> one empathizes with may expand one�s horizons? Nowadays one may get that >>>>> moral advancement from the talkies?.
I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to banning
books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to dancing, >>>> or empathy.
revolutions. If �woke� books get banned continuance of those incomplete
revolutions cease operation.
Banning books has much in common with using killfiles.
As matter of fact my book reading preferences or ignoring certain posters
on usenet, especially the current drug peddling spam, is exactly like what >Ron Desantis and his legislature is doing in Florida. The way my neurons
are set up I have a legislative branch and a governor who determine what >books or usenet posts to read and my more curious neurons have no say in
this repressive authoritarian regime between my ears. The analogy of what I >do or refuse to do carries over perfectly to what public serving entities >like school boards do. Yep!
But all that aside your reply is really about Bob right?
After 9/11 I was not out for blood, and was disenchanted by those who were, >but I recognized it as a typical emotional response. So maybe don't lump me >in with you.
And you might lack self-awareness, but deep down this is probably about
Bob. You’ve bored yourself going at him so want a fresh target for your >ire. Sadly I bit the hook and know how this movie ends already. I should
have learned vicariously via Bob’s travails. I’m the guy who sees someone >burn their finger on a stove a decides to try it too.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:00 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:13:07 +0000, *Hemidactylus*So does not reading certain authors that bore you or searching for books by >>filtering certain subject headings. Sarcasm tag.
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 8:11:14?AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>Excellent point. Pinker played up the importance of so-called rights
[ slash and burn ]
So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems.
kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters
one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that
moral advancement from the talkies?
I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to banning
books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to dancing, >>>>> or empathy.
revolutions. If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete
revolutions cease operation.
Banning books has much in common with using killfiles.
It certainly beats me what commonality there is between ignoring
someone through a killfile and seeking to prevent other people from
reading what that person has written.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
And you might lack self-awareness, but deep down this is probably about
Bob. You’ve bored yourself going at him so want a fresh target for your
ire. Sadly I bit the hook and know how this movie ends already. I should
have learned vicariously via Bob’s travails. I’m the guy who sees someone
burn their finger on a stove a decides to try it too.
That you insist my comment to you is "deep down" about Bob shows you
have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it. And since
you assume you know my motives better than I do, that means you
thought you knew the answers to your questions before you even asked,
and that means you had no good reason to ask your questions in the
first place. So I return the favor, and assume your intent was to
give yourself just another excuse to exercise your inner troll, as you
do above. You make your momma proud.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:[...]
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing,
but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not what I think, this was a view expressed by Dawkins.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything wrong? >>>>
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understandThis in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
nature. Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong.
It can't tell you if slavery was justified or not.
;
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the
other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw
Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting that
the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>> also happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>> the average atheist on the street is innocuous.
;
condemning their actions.
First, why do you think there is no good and evil?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don’t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except
the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>>>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough >>>>> I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to
helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google >>>> of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer >>>> to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a
rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to
whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they
dedicate their lives to helping other people.
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally
judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but >>>>>>> IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a >>>>>> Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are
racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough >>>>>> to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot
more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those
who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to
bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many
of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation
that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your
comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person
cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*You snipped:
<[email protected]d> wrote:
And you might lack self-awareness, but deep down this is probably about
Bob. You’ve bored yourself going at him so want a fresh target for your >>> ire. Sadly I bit the hook and know how this movie ends already. I should >>> have learned vicariously via Bob’s travails. I’m the guy who sees someone
burn their finger on a stove a decides to try it too.
That you insist my comment to you is "deep down" about Bob shows you
have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it. And since
you assume you know my motives better than I do, that means you
thought you knew the answers to your questions before you even asked,
and that means you had no good reason to ask your questions in the
first place. So I return the favor, and assume your intent was to
give yourself just another excuse to exercise your inner troll, as you
do above. You make your momma proud.
“A private individual deciding to filter out a poster they prefer not to
read is disanalogous to a public government entity like a school board >deciding other peoples kids shall not read certain books. A killfiler for
one is not violating anyones constitutional rights.
If I were to not read certain posters, for example the blight of incoming >drug peddling spam, is that just like banning books? If I decide to not
click on a website, that might be loaded with malware after checking it
with a scanner, is that like banning books?”
And refused to reply to any of that as previously you snipped:
“So does not reading certain authors that bore you or searching for books >by filtering certain subject headings. Sarcasm tag.
As matter of fact my book reading preferences or ignoring certain posters
on usenet, especially the current drug peddling spam, is exactly like what >Ron Desantis and his legislature is doing in Florida. The way my neurons
are set up I have a legislative branch and a governor who determine what >books or usenet posts to read and my more curious neurons have no say in
this repressive authoritarian regime between my ears. The analogy of what I >do or refuse to do carries over perfectly to what public serving entities >like school boards do. Yep!”
Those snips by you are quite telling and hypocritical. Not that I really
care how you conduct yourself because if you don’t have the integrity to >deal with that I’m not really here to clean up your shit. But it impacts >your reputation not mine. Sad for you.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 03:20:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> trolled:[]
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d> wrote:
And you might lack self-awareness, but deep down this is probably about
[]
That you insist my comment to you is "deep down" about Bob shows you
have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it. And since
You snipped:
I know what I snipped, and I know what you wrote. At most, "public[]
[]Those snips by you are quite telling and hypocritical. Not that I really
That you twist your knappies over my ignoring your OBVIOUS evasion
says much about you and your momma.
Personal bickering. Just what this NG is all about.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 03:20:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> trolled:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*You snipped:
<[email protected]d> wrote:
And you might lack self-awareness, but deep down this is probably about >>>> Bob. You’ve bored yourself going at him so want a fresh target for your >>>> ire. Sadly I bit the hook and know how this movie ends already. I should >>>> have learned vicariously via Bob’s travails. I’m the guy who sees someone
burn their finger on a stove a decides to try it too.
That you insist my comment to you is "deep down" about Bob shows you
have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it. And since
you assume you know my motives better than I do, that means you
thought you knew the answers to your questions before you even asked,
and that means you had no good reason to ask your questions in the
first place. So I return the favor, and assume your intent was to
give yourself just another excuse to exercise your inner troll, as you
do above. You make your momma proud.
I know what I snipped, and I know what you wrote. At most, "public government entities" make political capital by responding to pressures
from private individuals and organizations, which makes your comments non-sequitur. Repeating them below doesn't justify your willfully
stupid troll above nor your continuation of it below.
Me not reading posts by specific authors, which is just about the same as >killfiling them though that cleans the newsfeed up more conveniently,
is
not the same as me pressuring the government from outright banning their >posting ability or banning books I don’t like.
Wow you’ve really deteriorated.
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot >>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to
bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many
of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation
that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your
comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person
cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief,
angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there
would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit). Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of 'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are
vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as
or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have
been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives,
the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly
to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
DB Cates <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:I’ve heard Alberta called the Florida of Canada politically speaking. Is that so?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic. >>>>>>>
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot >>>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to >>>> bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many >>>> of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation >>>> that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your >>>> comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person >>>> cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the
Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual
elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief,
angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there
would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit).
Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the
traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional
conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of
'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the
conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to
Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are
vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the
country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically
treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as
or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have
been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives,
the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly
to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
On 23/10/2023 14:27, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
DB Cates <[email protected]> wrote:Traditionally it was compared to Texas (both have large fossil fuel extraction industries).
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:I’ve heard Alberta called the Florida of Canada politically speaking. Is >> that so?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the >>>>> time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic. >>>>>>>>
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot >>>>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>>>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to >>>>> bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many >>>>> of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation >>>>> that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your >>>>> comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person >>>>> cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven >>>>> are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And >>>>> mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the
Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual
elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief,
angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there
would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit).
Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the
traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional >>> conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of
'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the >>> conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to
Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are
vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the
country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically
treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as
or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have
been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives,
the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly >>> to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/10/2023 14:27, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
DB Cates <[email protected]> wrote:Traditionally it was compared to Texas (both have large fossil fuel extraction industries).
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:I’ve heard Alberta called the Florida of Canada politically speaking. Is
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion >>> has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the >>>>> time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was >>>>> being an arse.
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was
horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic. >>>>>>>>
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing'] >>>>>>> --
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot
more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or >>>> two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to >>>> realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I >>>>> believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an >>>>> optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those
who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to >>>>> bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people >>>> who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic >>>> and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political >>>> influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable >>>> degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree >>>> with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more >>>> deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The >>>> other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who >>>> are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many >>>>> of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation >>>>> that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your
comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person. >>>>
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person
cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven >>>>> are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And >>>>> mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed >>>> this sort of stuff with them.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the >>> Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual
elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief, >>> angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there >>> would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently >>> the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit). >>> Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the >>> traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional >>> conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of
'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the >>> conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to
Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap >>> with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are >>> vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the >>> country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically >>> treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and >>> many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as >>> or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have >>> been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives, >>> the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly >>> to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through) >>> seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
that so?
My dad’s folks came from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I’ve heard not nice
things are said about Nova Scotians in Canada.
DB Cates <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:I’ve heard Alberta called the Florida of Canada politically speaking. Is that so?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic. >>>>>>>
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot >>>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to >>>> bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many >>>> of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation >>>> that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your >>>> comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person >>>> cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the
Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual
elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief,
angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there
would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit).
Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the
traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional
conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of
'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the
conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to
Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are
vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the
country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically
treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as
or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have
been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives,
the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly
to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/10/2023 14:27, *Hemidactylus* wrote:My dad’s folks came from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I’ve heard not nice
DB Cates <[email protected]> wrote:Traditionally it was compared to Texas (both have large fossil fuel
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:I’ve heard Alberta called the Florida of Canada politically speaking. Is >>> that so?
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion >>>> has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the >>>>>> time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was >>>>>> being an arse.
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan
of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic. >>>>>>>>>
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd
rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is naïve would contribute a lot >>>>>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or >>>>> two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to >>>>> realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I >>>>>> believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an >>>>>> optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>>>>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to >>>>>> bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people >>>>> who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable >>>>> degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The >>>>> other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who >>>>> are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many >>>>>> of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation >>>>>> that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your >>>>>> comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person. >>>>>
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person >>>>>> cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven >>>>>> are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And >>>>>> mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the >>>> Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual
elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief, >>>> angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there >>>> would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit). >>>> Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the >>>> traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional >>>> conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of
'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the >>>> conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to
Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are >>>> vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the >>>> country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically >>>> treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as >>>> or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have >>>> been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives, >>>> the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly >>>> to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
extraction industries).
things are said about Nova Scotians in Canada.
My father was born in Nova Scotia, not in one of the more developed
areas but in Sydney, in the far reaches of Cape Breton Island. He was
sent at the age of about ten (by himself! they did things like that in
those days) to England to school. He never went back to Nova Scotia or
indeed to Canada, and never regarded himself as Canadian.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 19:28:32 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeableyup.
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to >>> got that
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can >>>> then use your kill file judiciously.Beasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to >>> notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Where’s “howard hershey”?
Missing? I've not seen a post in the last 30 days from such a nym.
Anyway, I'm not intending to compose a who's who with
labels of good/bad in this thread.
Last word to others. I'm stopping now.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:36:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict with
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil,
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement made >>>>>> by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>> his view
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:.
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do anything >>>>>>>>>>> wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
Science is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong.
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to atheism by >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people from >>>>>>>>>>>> sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those which >>>>>>>>>>>> also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, the >>>>>>>>>>>> average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
condemning
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if there >>>>>>>> is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I
think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a follow-up. >>>>>>>
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't necessarily >>>>>>> a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a not-a-god >>>>>>> designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but >>>>>> blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon >>>>>> what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or >>>>>> wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for
anyone. So, why make the comment?
Even when you corrected the above to start "I'm", it's incomplete.
to what? But cutting through things some, you seem to have a presumptive context and seem incapable of getting past it. So let's explain some likely context. There exist many people who think that there is purpose to the universe.
Some go so far as to say that everything happens for a reason. Others believe that there's some form of justice to the universe such that if some bad things
happen to you, something like karma will balance things out and have good things happen to balance it out. This isn't limited to theists. Some non-believers
have a deep need to find external purpose.
The quote you attribute to Dawkins says that he disagrees.
Earthquakes don't happen to punish sinful people. Asteroids don't impact planets
as part of a plan. The Universe is indifferent. It's a perverse misreading to interpret
that to mean that to mean people who are part of the Universe must also therefore
be indifferent. It boggles the mind to think that you would attempt to interpret it that way.
Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:....
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this in order to support your religious beliefs?
You're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or dogma in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
Ron D, you post abundantly of your religious belief on
t.o., which is fine. But then you go off on godless
atheists and their perceived immorality. Other times you
want to muse about your past religious life. Aren't you
the one injecting religion here?
You start a thread to make points for a scientific point
of view, and when people try to talk nuts-and-bolts
science with you, you can't do it. Instead you go off
the deep end, like above.
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth.
It is just..
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
This sounds a lot like a religious belief to me. Do you
disagree?
I've been preoccupied with other threads during the very limited time I had for posting
these last ten days. But now I am finally getting a little free time,
and I see you posted here again a few hours ago, John. So I begin with you.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 19:28:32 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700Where’s “howard hershey”?
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that >>>>>>
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeableBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to >>>>>> notice the NG title.
posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly who >>>>>>> post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to >>>>>> got that
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >>>>>> yup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can >>>>>>> then use your kill file judiciously.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Hemidactylus was just giving you the punch line of one of his
favorite in-jokes., John.
Missing? I've not seen a post in the last 30 days from such a nym.
Howard Hershey stopped posting to talk.origins in 2011.
Anyway, I'm not intending to compose a who's who with
labels of good/bad in this thread.
Or anywhere else? If you try any time in the next few years,
Scott Chase ("Hemidactylus") might have a new in-joke
inspired by something you do/did.
Last word to others. I'm stopping now.
A wise decision. You haven't seen nearly enough of the
behavior of those whom you listed, nor the behavior of
those whom you did not list.
I urge you take careful note of the following piece of personal philosophy.
"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of
a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look
at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular
rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is
often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare
but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while almost everything
studied about social life focuses on the 'normal,' particularly with
'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its nickname in this
book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1:
The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
I did an exploration of some ramifications of the Great Intellectual
Fraud (GIF) in the following
reply to a former t.o. regular who seems to have quit t.o. shortly before you joined:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/JnsJIvllBgAJ
Re: What is the probability?
Dec 13, 2022, 6:45:19 PM
I've been preoccupied with other threads during the very limited time I had for posting
these last ten days. But now I am finally getting a little free time,
and I see you posted here again a few hours ago, John. So I begin with you.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 19:28:32 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeable >>>> posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly whogot that
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who areyup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You canBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to
then use your kill file judiciously.
notice the NG title.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Where’s “howard hershey”?
Hemidactylus was just giving you the punch line of one of his
favorite in-jokes., John.
Missing? I've not seen a post in the last 30 days from such a nym.
Howard Hershey stopped posting to talk.origins in 2011.
Anyway, I'm not intending to compose a who's who with
labels of good/bad in this thread.
Or anywhere else? If you try any time in the next few years,
Scott Chase ("Hemidactylus") might have a new in-joke
inspired by something you do/did.
Last word to others. I'm stopping now.
A wise decision. You haven't seen nearly enough of the
behavior of those whom you listed, nor the behavior of
those whom you did not list.
I urge you take careful note of the following piece of personal philosophy.assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare
"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 5:01:11 PM UTC-4, El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:....
Why do you think that it is necessary to lie to yourself like this inYou're the damn liar! No where and at no time have I referenced my
order to support your religious beliefs?
religious belief, nor have I quoted any religious, source, belief or dogma >>> in support of anything that I ever posted to TO or anywhere else. If
it gives you some sense of satisfaction or assurance to think that the
only cause of dispute with evolution is because of religion, that's
your idiotic delusion.
Ron D, you post abundantly of your religious belief on
t.o., which is fine. But then you go off on godless
atheists and their perceived immorality. Other times you
want to muse about your past religious life. Aren't you
the one injecting religion here?
You seem to know much about Ron D's habits, yet you
decide to take him to task rather than Ron Okimoto, who
does NOT post about his religion but has unfounded,
degogatory fantasies about those of others -- Kalkidas, Glenn, MarkE, and, as here,
Ron Dean. For years he had such fantasies about me,
but I finally convinced him that I am very far from
the stereotype he has of these others.
So tell me, "El Kabong," why are you so hard on Ron D, but
give Ron O a free pass?
You start a thread to make points for a scientific point
of view, and when people try to talk nuts-and-bolts
science with you, you can't do it. Instead you go off
the deep end, like above.
Ron D is learning, slowly. He could learn a lot faster
if he were deeply interested in science for its own sake,
like I am. I've tried to give him pointers from time to time,
but since they are purely scientific, he has a hard time assimilating them.
OTOH there are anti-creationists who also don't seem to be
interested in science for science's sake, but only as a weapon
to hit creationists over the head with. Take care lest you be one of them.
The whole point of IDiotic evolution denial is to claim that the
Biblical god is responsible for the extant life on earth.
This is Ron O's favorite straw man. Do you subscribe to it too?
It is just..
boneheaded stupidity to think that the situation isn't just what it has >>>> always been with IDiots.
For many evolutionist evolution has replaced
God, religion and morality, But for other evolutionist, evolution has
become their religion. And you fit firmly in the latter category. Proof
of this _fact_ is it raises your ire and you become defensive and
strike out at anyone who recognizes this trait in you!
This sounds a lot like a religious belief to me. Do you
disagree?
FWIW, I do. It's a bit of personal philosophy, which is what the Black Swan concept is, albeit on an astronomically higher level.
See my reply to John Kerr-Mudd about a half hour ago for what that
is all about.
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>> atheism byScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>> there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>> think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >> anyone. So, why make the comment?
What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely hoping this was wrong.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:11:17 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
I've been preoccupied with other threads during the very limited time I had for posting
these last ten days. But now I am finally getting a little free time,
and I see you posted here again a few hours ago, John. So I begin with you. >>
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 19:28:32 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:11:41 -0700Where’s “howard hershey”?
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Apologies. I knew I'd get it wrong, but I'm learning.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:29:26 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I think it was those in the thread and those accused of stuff.
I'm not sure who "all 3 of you" are, but a naive reading suggests that >>>>>>>
I get it now, no point in asking.
you want to killfile some of the most serious and knowledgeable >>>>>>>> posters. That would be a great mistake. You can learn quite quickly whoBeasely is obviously off on a one person campaign, and doesn't seem to >>>>>>> notice the NG title.
post stuff you _never_ want to read (JTEM, for a start), who seem to >>>>>>> got that
try but never manage to learn or understand (Ron Dean, MarkE), who are >>>>>>> yup.
mainly here for the bickering (Jillery, Nyikos, for example). You can >>>>>>>> then use your kill file judiciously.
Anyhow, thanks for the pointers.
Not many posters left! just
yourself
Bob Casanova
broger
Burkhard
John Harshman
Lawyer Daggett
Oo Tiib (sorry, 7bit ASCII here)
*Hemidactylus*
(roughly in sort order)
Did I miss any?
<raises hand>
Hemidactylus was just giving you the punch line of one of his
favorite in-jokes., John.
Missing? I've not seen a post in the last 30 days from such a nym.
Howard Hershey stopped posting to talk.origins in 2011.
Anyway, I'm not intending to compose a who's who with
labels of good/bad in this thread.
Or anywhere else? If you try any time in the next few years,
Scott Chase ("Hemidactylus") might have a new in-joke
inspired by something you do/did.
Last word to others. I'm stopping now.
A wise decision. You haven't seen nearly enough of the
behavior of those whom you listed, nor the behavior of
those whom you did not list.
I urge you take careful note of the following piece of personal philosophy. >>
"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea
of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to
look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the
regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal
poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we
understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics?
Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life
is produced by rare but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while
almost everything studied about social life focuses on the 'normal,'
particularly with 'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close
to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot
handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its
nickname in this book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1:
The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Well, Pa, a woman can change better'n a man. A man lives sorta - well, in jerks.
Baby's born or somebody dies, and that's a jerk. He gets a farm or loses it, and that's a jerk. With a woman, it's all in one flow, like a stream - little eddies
and waterfalls - but the river, it goes right on. Woman looks at it thata way.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say. >>>
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism byScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>>> there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>>> think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >>>> anyone. So, why make the comment?
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of
atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." -
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
I really dislike such out-of-context quotes. There are quite a few characters in
her Harry Potter "heptalogue" who would be in character if they said that and *meant* it.
I believe it is highly unlikely that J.K.Rowling herself ever ascribed to such a nihilistic philosophy,
much as some powerful people may think she does.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response to
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
Peter Nyikos
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
But I don't know what Dawkins sees as the basis for morality. The quote
you give says nothing whatsoever about what the basis for morality is or
is not.
You have an annoying tendency to project your own biases onto people you regard as atheists. I strongly suggest you find an atheist somewhere,
invite him or her to dinner, and spend about 10% of the conversation
time asking questions and 90% listening. Or at the very least, read the works of Mark Twain.
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely hoping this was wrong.Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
Peter Nyikos
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind >>> pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what >>> basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? >>> I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
But I don't know what Dawkins sees as the basis for morality. The quote
you give says nothing whatsoever about what the basis for morality is or
is not.
You have an annoying tendency to project your own biases onto people you
regard as atheists. I strongly suggest you find an atheist somewhere,
invite him or her to dinner, and spend about 10% of the conversation
time asking questions and 90% listening. Or at the very least, read the
works of Mark Twain.
Couldn't you cut that down somewhat? The innocent-seeming "The Mysterious Stranger"
ends in an appalling vision that DOES have that nihilistic message,
and is also the opposite of Teilhard de Chardin's recklessly optimistic "Omega Point."
The people who brought out that children's card game "authors," popular with children, have
a heavy resposibility for choosing that as one of four "suits" associated with Mark Twain.
I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they knew not what they were doing.
If they had, I believe they would have substited "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's
court or some other children-friendly book.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The
slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
That's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it. "woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for anything with a hint of liberal sentiment, from being in any way shape or form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught
"useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected
to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art.
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind >>> pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what >>> basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? >>> I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
But I don't know what Dawkins sees as the basis for morality. The quote
you give says nothing whatsoever about what the basis for morality is or
is not.
You have an annoying tendency to project your own biases onto people you
regard as atheists. I strongly suggest you find an atheist somewhere,
invite him or her to dinner, and spend about 10% of the conversation
time asking questions and 90% listening. Or at the very least, read the
works of Mark Twain.
Couldn't you cut that down somewhat? The innocent-seeming "The Mysterious Stranger"
ends in an appalling vision that DOES have that nihilistic message,
and is also the opposite of Teilhard de Chardin's recklessly optimistic "Omega Point."
The people who brought out that children's card game "authors," popular with children, have
a heavy resposibility for choosing that as one of four "suits" associated with Mark Twain.
I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they knew not what they were doing.
If they had, I believe they would have substited "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's
court or some other children-friendly book.
On 10/23/23 12:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should expect >>>> where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, but blind >>>> pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. Upon what >>>> basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right or wrong? >>>> I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
But I don't know what Dawkins sees as the basis for morality. The quote
you give says nothing whatsoever about what the basis for morality is or >>> is not.
You have an annoying tendency to project your own biases onto people you >>> regard as atheists. I strongly suggest you find an atheist somewhere,
invite him or her to dinner, and spend about 10% of the conversation
time asking questions and 90% listening. Or at the very least, read the
works of Mark Twain.
Couldn't you cut that down somewhat? The innocent-seeming "The Mysterious Stranger"
ends in an appalling vision that DOES have that nihilistic message,
and is also the opposite of Teilhard de Chardin's recklessly optimistic "Omega Point."
The people who brought out that children's card game "authors," popular
with children, have
a heavy resposibility for choosing that as one of
four "suits" associated with Mark Twain.
I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they knew not what they were doing.
If they had, I believe they would have substited "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's
court or some other children-friendly book.
I was thinking of "Was it Heaven? or Hell?" Not great literature, but
it shows an example of the moral thinking of an atheist.
On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:to her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict >>>>> with what Dawkins said.
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On theScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>>> there is no god,I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>>> think it's been
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil? >>>>>>>>> .
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a >>>>>>>>> follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't >>>>>>>>> necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for
anyone. So, why make the comment?
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of
atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did >> he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." -
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
I really dislike such out-of-context quotes. There are quite a few characters in
her Harry Potter "heptalogue" who would be in character if they said that and *meant* it.
I believe it is highly unlikely that J.K.Rowling herself ever ascribed to such a nihilistic philosophy,
much as some powerful people may think she does.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
And it's wrong.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The
slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
That's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it. "woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for anything with a hint of liberal sentiment,
from being in any way shape or
form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual
history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught "useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where
proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art.
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
To me wokeness captures well the journey of the two protagonists of the movie Green Book and especially the book itself. To navigate the deep south and other areas where sundown towns littered the landscape (eg- eugenic Indiana) one needed to stay woke in the original sense of Huddie Ledbetter. After BLM activists helped resurrect the term (Childish Gambino used it in
a different sense), reactionary blue liners lost their shit and bastardized the term with the help of Chris Rufo into the derogatory epithet it is today.
It’s a shibboleth in how the way it’s invoked says a lot about the invoker.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:[snip]
To me wokeness captures well the journey of the two protagonists of the
movie Green Book and especially the book itself. To navigate the deep south >> and other areas where sundown towns littered the landscape (eg- eugenic
Indiana) one needed to stay woke in the original sense of Huddie Ledbetter. >> After BLM activists helped resurrect the term (Childish Gambino used it in >> a different sense), reactionary blue liners lost their shit and bastardized >> the term with the help of Chris Rufo into the derogatory epithet it is
today.
It’s a shibboleth in how the way it’s invoked says a lot about the invoker.
Do you, too, believe in the magic of words ("shibboleth") to besmirch people who object to really crass enforcement of radical woke standards?
I had thought you'd mellowed in the last few years, especially with the wake-up
call this year of Ron O seeking to have me banned and Bill Rogers, of all people,
advocating a system of banning anyone who denigrates others despite one or two warnings.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:to her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."
On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict >>>>>>> with what Dawkins said.
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On theScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism by
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no god,I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>>>>> think it's been
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil? >>>>>>>>>>> .
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>> follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died.
Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a >>>>>>>>>>> not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >>>>>> anyone. So, why make the comment?
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of >>>> atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did >>>> he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." -
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
I really dislike such out-of-context quotes. There are quite a few characters in
her Harry Potter "heptalogue" who would be in character if they said that and *meant* it.
I believe it is highly unlikely that J.K.Rowling herself ever ascribed to such a nihilistic philosophy,
much as some powerful people may think she does.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely >>>> hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as to where to re-enter it.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
THIRD: William James was too great a philosopher and psychologist to leave it at that, but continued:We could talk about that, but I don't find that view at all nightmarish.
"This is an uncanny, a sinister, a nightmare view of life, and its
peculiar *unheimlichkeit* or poisonousness lies expressly in our
holding two things together which cannot possibly agree,–in our
clinging on the one hand to the demand that there shall be a living
spirit of the whole, and, on the other, to the belief that the course
of nature must be such a spirit’s adequate manifestation and
expression. It is in the contradiction between the supposed being of
a spirit that encompasses and owns us and with which we ought to have
some communion, and the character of such a spirit as revealed by the
visible world’s course, that this particular death-in-life paradox
and this melancholy-breeding puzzle reside. Carlyle expresses the
result in that chapter of his immortal “Sartor Resartus” entitled The Everlasting No." -- *op* *cit* (below).
It's a fine essay, countering this dismal view, and many-faceted. I think I see where he wraps it up,
but I will need to read it over to be sure.
But more relevantly, I ask: did Dawkins ameliorate the words quoted by Ron Dean?
I ask this question of the whole readership, since your habit might result in further delays by you.
"Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind. Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissolublepartnership; and there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful Power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom."
-- William James, "Is Life Worth Living?" published on line in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_Life_Worth_Living%3F_(James)
QUOTE OF THE WEEKand there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful Power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom."
"Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind. Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissoluble partnership;
-- William James, "Is Life Worth Living?" published on line in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_Life_Worth_Living%3F_(James)
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17?PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
That's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it. >"woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for >anything with a hint of liberal sentiment, from being in any way shape or >form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual >history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught
"useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where >proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected
to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art.
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete*********************************
revolutions cease operation.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
You chose to be beside the point, and in other ways, too. That says a lot about you. [Turnabout is fair play.]It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The
slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
Short on time, I also address what Daggett wrote.
I have never encountered what is called a "Right Wing Karen" that usesThat's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it.
"woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for anything with a hint of liberal sentiment,
the word "woke" that way, not even in MAGA-dominated forums.
And until someone provides documented examples of each of the
five things Daggett lists below, I will assume that he is knocking
down a straw man of his creation.
from being in any way shape or
form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual
history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught "useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where
proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected
to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art.
Daggett is one of those polemicists who believes in the magic of wordsYou introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
like "bogeyman" and "ignominy" after presenting what looks like real bogeymen designed to make people spurn everyone who uses the word "woke" without condemning the straw men that Daggett talks about.
Well, two can play this game--and on new levels. Unlike Daggett, I document whereof I speak.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marching-toward-change-parents-have-no-rights-to-decline-lgbtq-education-despite-religious-convictions-provoking-a-furious-backlash/ss-AA1iCHCe
Like the one on the canceling of J.K. Rowling, this is a slide show;
the first slide reads:
"A new ruling in a court in Maryland sees parents stripped of their right to remove their children from classes related to LGBTQ+ education, sparking outrage from some parents who claim that their “religious beliefs” should be respected."
the second one gets more specific:
"A federal court ruling has shaken the education landscape, stating that parents can’t exempt their kids from reading LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County Schools."
Several slides later, we learn the identity of the one-judge court:
"Judge Deborah L. Boardman, appointed by President Biden, delivered her verdict on whether parents can opt their children out of LGBTQ+ content."
As you might expect, given Biden being in thrall towards trans issues, the answer was NO,
and Boardman refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, claiming to believe
that the parents' case was without sufficient merit.
Will the two of you ignore the issues, like you did in the case of Rowling? Do you recall how little Daggett and Burkhard cared about the German prohibition on home
schooling [1]? Would you, at least, be opposed to a Maryland ban on home schooling?
[1] Daggett vilified me for daring to say that it was a holdover from the Nazi era,
while Burkhard told the dishonest half-truth that the Nazis slightly ameliorated the earlier policy,
conveniently neglecting to say that the Weimar Republic and earlier German regimes *allowed* private home schooling,
forbidding it while allowing a few highly restricted reasons to opt out of schooling altogether.
To me wokeness captures well the journey of the two protagonists of the movie Green Book and especially the book itself. To navigate the deep south
and other areas where sundown towns littered the landscape (eg- eugenic Indiana) one needed to stay woke in the original sense of Huddie Ledbetter.
After BLM activists helped resurrect the term (Childish Gambino used it in a different sense), reactionary blue liners lost their shit and bastardized
the term with the help of Chris Rufo into the derogatory epithet it is today.
It’s a shibboleth in how the way it’s invoked says a lot about the invoker.Do you, too, believe in the magic of words ("shibboleth") to besmirch people who object to really crass enforcement of radical woke standards?
I had thought you'd mellowed in the last few years, especially with the wake-up
call this year of Ron O seeking to have me banned and Bill Rogers, of all people,
advocating a system of banning anyone who denigrates others despite one or two warnings.
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17?PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >>
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The
slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
That's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it. >> "woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for
anything with a hint of liberal sentiment, from being in any way shape or
form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual >> history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught
"useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where
proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected >> to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art. >>
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
Pedantically, Nyikos didn't introduce "woke" to this topic.
Ignominiously, Hemidactylus did, in reply to you: *******************************
From: *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:13:07 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete*********************************
revolutions cease operation.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettIgnominiously?
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:41:17?PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >>>
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The
slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke"
is beside the point of what is meant here.
That's a stretch to believe. You introduce the term "woke" and keep at it. >>> "woke" is a trigger word the Right Wing Karens who use and abuse it for >>> anything with a hint of liberal sentiment, from being in any way shape or >>> form showing empathy or respect for LGBTQ persons, to acknowledging
the continued existence of institutional racism, to teaching honest factual >>> history in public school that includes the nature of chattel slavery. These people
want school books to rename slaves as "guest workers" who were taught
"useful trades". They are scared to death of Social Emotional Learning, where
proven science fosters a learning atmosphere where children feel connected >>> to the focus of their studies, from math, to languages, to history, to art. >>>
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
Pedantically, Nyikos didn't introduce "woke" to this topic.
Ignominiously, Hemidactylus did, in reply to you:
*******************************
From: *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:13:07 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete*********************************
revolutions cease operation.
In context which you dropped…
I had said on this thread”
“So morality is an after the fact rationalization of gut responses? Seems >kinda right, but what of Pinker’s borrowed notion that reading characters >one empathizes with may expand one’s horizons? Nowadays one may get that >moral advancement from the talkies?”
Daggett replied:
“I think it explains why certain political groups are so dedicated to >banning books that include characters they consider icky. Could lead to >dancing, or empathy.”
I replied to that, continuing with Pinker who was a running topic: >“Excellent point. Pinker played up the importance of so-called rights >revolutions. If “woke” books get banned continuance of those incomplete >revolutions cease operation.”
To which you ignominiously replied way out on left field with the nonsense >disanalogy:
“Banning books has much in common with using killfiles.”
Now, as seen above, you’re resorting to being a thug pursuing some silly >vendetta against me. Replying to you is mud wrestling with a pig.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 4:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What I wrote down, after I had thought it through, but it was too
John Harshman wrote:Could you repeat that in English? I have no idea what you're trying to say. >>>
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:( I'm) convinced he intended to be applicable. If not, then what he wrote was
John Harshman wrote:Not really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict
On 10/20/23 2:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom and
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:56:14 AM UTC-4,Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>>> made
[email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Because there is no good and evil, so you have no basis for >>>>>>>>>>> condemning
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
RonO wrote:[...]
I don't know anyone who was led to atheism by evolution. On the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I have met several people who were led to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism byScience is just the best means that we have to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheism,
Science can't tell you if abortion is right or wrong. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
tell you if slavery was justified or not.
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Christianity. I propose, for Ron Dean's sake, that we outlaw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, or better yet all religion, to prevent people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
sliding into atheism.
So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism. So, did Stalin or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mao do
anything wrong?
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also
happen to be authoritarian dictators. As Ron tacitly admits, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Serious question: Why do you need to ask?
their actions.
I'll ask again in this thread, too. Why do you think that if >>>>>>>>>> there is no god,.
then there is no basis for judgements about good and evil?
I too would like it if he attempted to answer that question. I >>>>>>>>> think it's been
asked at least a dozen times with no answer. But there's a
follow-up.
Ron has extemporized that his asserted designer, who isn't
necessarily
a god, may have done a drive by bit of designing then left, or died. >>>>>>>>> Does he assert that designer specified good and evil in some way? >>>>>>>>>
And while I'm at it, what's different from a belief in a
not-a-god designer
who has moved on, or died, and atheism?
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
with what Dawkins said.
pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. It would have no implications for >>>> anyone. So, why make the comment?
quickly written.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of
atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did
he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." -
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
I really dislike such out-of-context quotes. There are quite a few characters in
her Harry Potter "heptalogue" who would be in character if they said that and *meant* it.
I believe it is highly unlikely that J.K.Rowling herself ever ascribed to such a nihilistic philosophy,
much as some powerful people may think she does.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response to
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
Peter Nyikos
[email protected] wrote:[...]
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]John Harshman wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:47 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those
which happen to be authoritarian dictators.
As Ron tacitly admits, theOk on exactly what moral grounds did Stalin and Mao do >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong?
average atheist on the street is innocuous.
Maybe, I was never clear as to what upset me. That was a statement >>>>>>>> made
by a famous and perhaps the most well know atheist alive today. In >>>>>>>> his view
The universe we observe has, "precisely the properties we should >>>>>>>> expect
where there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil, nothing, >>>>>>>> but blind
pitiless indifference. - R. Dawkins.
My issue, if this is true, then what is the basis for morality. >>>>>>>> Upon what
basis do people, who accept this, determine good and evil, right >>>>>>>> or wrong?
I expected someone would disagree with Dawkins!
Try a little introspection. How do *you* determine good and evil, >>>>>>> right or wrong? Do you require that the universe cares?
We, humans are very much part of the universe. Every atom andNot really an answer, is it? Nothing you say there is in conflict >>>>> with what Dawkins said.
sub-particle
in our bodies are from stars.
But, If Dawkins did not mean what he wrote, as being representative of
atheist thought, then his comment was pointless and irrelevant, why did >> he make the comment?
In my opinion, J.K Rowling expressed Dawkins thoughts: "There is no
good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." -
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30725-there-is-no-good-and-evil-there-is-only-power
I really dislike such out-of-context quotes. There are quite a few characters in
her Harry Potter "heptalogue" who would be in character if they said that and *meant* it.
to her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."I believe it is highly unlikely that J.K.Rowling herself ever ascribed to such a nihilistic philosophy,
much as some powerful people may think she does.
When I chose the quote I did not consider it her personal philosophy.
But I thought the phrase was
in keeping with Dawkins' statement. I will acknowledge he was speaking
in terms the universe.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
I think this woke phenomena is a passing fancy. It too will pass.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely
hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
I agree, there is just two genders or sexes. But what is distressing, is when young children
are asked about which sex they would like to be. And they can a "make"
the decision without
confiding with the parents. I don't know whether or not this is true,
but it was rumored.
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right
and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you
clearly haven't done.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
But all Dawkins actually said is the
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything?
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance
of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
THIRD: William James was too great a philosopher and psychologist to leave it at that, but continued:
"This is an uncanny, a sinister, a nightmare view of life, and its peculiar *unheimlichkeit* or poisonousness lies expressly in our
holding two things together which cannot possibly agree,–in our
clinging on the one hand to the demand that there shall be a living
spirit of the whole, and, on the other, to the belief that the course
of nature must be such a spirit’s adequate manifestation and
expression. It is in the contradiction between the supposed being of
a spirit that encompasses and owns us and with which we ought to have
some communion, and the character of such a spirit as revealed by the visible world’s course, that this particular death-in-life paradox
and this melancholy-breeding puzzle reside. Carlyle expresses the
result in that chapter of his immortal “Sartor Resartus” entitled The Everlasting No." -- *op* *cit* (below).
We could talk about that, but I don't find that view at all nightmarish.
Of course I don't cling to the demand or belief that James mentions
there. Perhaps that makes the difference.
It's a fine essay, countering this dismal view, and many-faceted. I think I see where he wraps it up,
but I will need to read it over to be sure.
How does he counter this dismal view, granting for the moment that it's dismal at all? How is all this in any way relevant to whether life is
worth living?
But more relevantly, I ask: did Dawkins ameliorate the words quoted by Ron Dean?
No need, since the words themselves do not say what you and Dean appear
to be seeing.
My understanding is that you would be in agreement with
Dawkins, or at least would attach a high probability to his scenario.
The universe doesn't care about us (or about anything), and there is no benevolent spirit behind its existence. That has nothing to do with
whether there is such a thing as morality.
I ask this question of the whole readership, since your habit might result in further delays by you.
partnership; and there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful Power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom.""Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind. Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissoluble
-- William James, "Is Life Worth Living?" published on line in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_Life_Worth_Living%3F_(James)
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about are the ones by me.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the
universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right
and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you
clearly haven't done.
Dead wrong. It is PRECISELY because I had looked at it that I wrote what I did.
Nobody, least of all you, quoted anything from Dawkins that would
suggest that Ron Dean was wrong about Dawkins.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
No wonder you love to accuse me of incorrectly reading your mind:
it's a smokescreen for all the times you *really* do it, as here.
>But all Dawkins actually said is the
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything?
Answered in the QUOTE OF THE WEEK (see at the end),
which hit me full force at least once in my life.
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance
of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?
A purer case of GIGO would be hard to find.
Dawkins might, repeat, *might* easily be amoral, yet an upright citizen, refraining from what I
think of as immoral acts, but on purely *prudential* grounds. Such grounds keep most
people from committing murder, because of the harsh way it is punished if one is caught.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response. She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would
never have suspected up to about a year ago.
THIRD: William James was too great a philosopher and psychologist to leave it at that, but continued:
"This is an uncanny, a sinister, a nightmare view of life, and its
peculiar *unheimlichkeit* or poisonousness lies expressly in our
holding two things together which cannot possibly agree,–in our
clinging on the one hand to the demand that there shall be a living
spirit of the whole, and, on the other, to the belief that the course
of nature must be such a spirit’s adequate manifestation and
expression. It is in the contradiction between the supposed being of
a spirit that encompasses and owns us and with which we ought to have
some communion, and the character of such a spirit as revealed by the
visible world’s course, that this particular death-in-life paradox
and this melancholy-breeding puzzle reside. Carlyle expresses the
result in that chapter of his immortal “Sartor Resartus” entitled The >>> Everlasting No." -- *op* *cit* (below).
We could talk about that, but I don't find that view at all nightmarish.
Of course I don't cling to the demand or belief that James mentions
there. Perhaps that makes the difference.
It's a fine essay, countering this dismal view, and many-faceted. I think I see where he wraps it up,
but I will need to read it over to be sure.
How does he counter this dismal view, granting for the moment that it's
dismal at all? How is all this in any way relevant to whether life is
worth living?
I still haven't had a chance to re-read it, and probably won't until this weekend.
But I remember that he does give satisfactory answers for anyone who cares enough about the meaning of life.
But more relevantly, I ask: did Dawkins ameliorate the words quoted by Ron Dean?
No need, since the words themselves do not say what you and Dean appear
to be seeing.
There's your GIGO again. Only a simpleton would think that
I could have learned where Dawkins stands from what has
transpired on this thread so far.
My understanding is that you would be in agreement with
Dawkins, or at least would attach a high probability to his scenario.
The universe doesn't care about us (or about anything), and there is no
benevolent spirit behind its existence. That has nothing to do with
whether there is such a thing as morality.
Another no-brainer from you.
I ask this question of the whole readership, since your habit might result in further delays by you.
As indeed it has.
QUOTE OF THE WEEKpartnership; and there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful Power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom."
"Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind. Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissoluble
-- William James, "Is Life Worth Living?" published on line in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_Life_Worth_Living%3F_(James)
Trivia: the wikisource has an ungrammatical "phenomena" which I corrected to "phenomenon" up there. I have a 1956 Dover reprint
of the original, and it is supposed to be an exact duplicate of William James's original publication.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:41:18 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
[email protected] wrote:[...]saak wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:41:15 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I think we should also point out Ron Dean's wisdom in noting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the only atheists which are particularly dangerous are those
which happen to be authoritarian dictators.
I kept overlooking this comment, Ron. Do you agree with what Mark is saying about you here?
Remember the old saying: the pen is mightier than the sword.
It would seem from this that some ideas are at least as dangerous as dictators.
Mark himself seems to have second thoughts below with the addition of "average":
to her unwavering stance on issues related to biological gender."When I chose the quote I did not consider it her personal philosophy.
But I thought the phrase was
in keeping with Dawkins' statement. I will acknowledge he was speaking
in terms the universe.
Here is an extreme, yet all too celebrated case of the power some people wield against her:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/joy-sucking-entity-in-the-world-of-harry-potter-j-k-rowling-stripped-of-hall-of-fame-status-over-firm-stance-on-biological-gender/ss-AA1izKjf
[from the first of ca. 20 slides]
"In an unexpected decision, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle, Washington, has taken the controversial step of removing J.K. Rowling from its Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame and its Harry Potter exhibition. This action comes in response
I think this woke phenomena is a passing fancy. It too will pass.
It appears that they did keep the Harry Potter exhibit itself. The slides are full of virtue signaling by the museum
bigwigs and by "woke" propagandists applauding the decision.
Maybe, but it is what was called "political correctness" in the 20th century.
True, trans issues were under most people's radar screen back then,
but they have long since been lumped in LGBT [1] under issues that were patrolled
by the politically correct thought police (figuratively speaking).
It is only in the last few months that I've seen some leading LGB questioning their solidarity with T [2].
[1] Nowadays Q+ is added to the acronym, but there seems to be some confusion as to whether Q stands for Queer or Questioning.
[2] Already around 2000 I was half-jokingly saying that there should be
three T's, for Transvestite, Transgender, and Transsexual. The first category has had enormous popularity and (thanks to Biden) prestige, what with
the adulation heaped on drag queens.
NOTE TO HEMIDACTYLUS: Etymological nitpicking about the term "woke" is beside the point of what is meant here.
FWIW, reader comments are almost unanimous in condemning the museum bigwigs and other propagandists.
I wonder what the ratio would be like among t.o. participants.
So far, it seems like participants are very coy about this, but at least one has denounced me for using "woke" in such a pejorative context.
And Hemidactylus came close, completely disregarding my note to him above.
That expressed my understanding of what Dawkins wrote. I was sincerely >>>> hoping this was wrong.
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
By the way, Dawkins and Rowling ARE strange bedfellows in another respect: Dawkins has come
under heavy fire from the same kind of "woke" propagandists for saying that there are only two biological *sexes*
[not to be confused with genders, which have been made recently into sociological and psychological constructs].
I agree, there is just two genders or sexes. But what is distressing, is
when young children
are asked about which sex they would like to be. And they can a "make"
the decision without
confiding with the parents. I don't know whether or not this is true,
but it was rumored.
In fact, it's been asserted in various forums that some teachers are forbidden to tell the parents what decisions their children
are seriously thinking of making along these lines.
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:21:06 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:partnership; and there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful Power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom."
<snip-a-doodle>
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind. Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissoluble
-- William James, "Is Life Worth Living?" published on line in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_Life_Worth_Living%3F_(James)
Your quote above might be similar to your understanding of Dawkins'
quote, and it might even be similar to R.Dean's understanding of
Dawkins' quote, but it's nothing like what Dawkins said or meant.
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about are the ones by me.
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the
universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right >>> and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult. And it said
exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother to read it. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you
clearly haven't done.
Dead wrong. It is PRECISELY because I had looked at it that I wrote what I did.
Nobody, least of all you, quoted anything from Dawkins that would
suggest that Ron Dean was wrong about Dawkins.
Then I have to conclude that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, because the Dawkins statement is clear, and it most
certainly doesn't say what Ron Dean thought, as pointed out by everyone
who responded to him. Well, except you.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
No wonder you love to accuse me of incorrectly reading your mind:
it's a smokescreen for all the times you *really* do it, as here.
So you're saying that isn't what you understood? Did you not say that
the Rowling quote was "consonant with Dawkins's philosophy"? The quote
that said "There is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to
use it." What does that have to do with anything Dawkins ever said?
>But all Dawkins actually said is the
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything? >>Answered in the QUOTE OF THE WEEK (see at the end),
which hit me full force at least once in my life.
In what way is that an answer?
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance
of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?
A purer case of GIGO would be hard to find.
Dawkins might, repeat, *might* easily be amoral, yet an upright citizen, refraining from what I
think of as immoral acts, but on purely *prudential* grounds. Such grounds keep most
people from committing murder, because of the harsh way it is punished if one is caught.
I doubt that most people need such grounds to prevent them from
committing murder. You have a very low opinion of other people in
general, apparently. And your speculations regarding Dawkins are
unfounded as well as insulting.
I'm going to snip your pointless digression.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response. >> She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would
never have suspected up to about a year ago.
Empty insults used to avoid engagement? Why do you even both to respond,
if that's all you're going to say?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:21:33 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant >>>>>>> with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to
get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about
are the ones by me.
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the
universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right >>>> and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult. And it said
exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother to read it. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging
in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you
clearly haven't done.
Dead wrong. It is PRECISELY because I had looked at it that I wrote what I did.
Nobody, least of all you, quoted anything from Dawkins that would
suggest that Ron Dean was wrong about Dawkins.
Then I have to conclude that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, because the Dawkins statement is clear, and it most
certainly doesn't say what Ron Dean thought, as pointed out by everyone
who responded to him. Well, except you.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
No wonder you love to accuse me of incorrectly reading your mind:
it's a smokescreen for all the times you *really* do it, as here.
So you're saying that isn't what you understood? Did you not say that
the Rowling quote was "consonant with Dawkins's philosophy"? The quote
that said "There is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to
use it." What does that have to do with anything Dawkins ever said?
But all Dawkins actually said is theAnswered in the QUOTE OF THE WEEK (see at the end),
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything? >>>
which hit me full force at least once in my life.
In what way is that an answer?
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will >>>>> do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but
because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance >>>> of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?
A purer case of GIGO would be hard to find.
Dawkins might, repeat, *might* easily be amoral, yet an upright
citizen, refraining from what I
think of as immoral acts, but on purely *prudential* grounds. Such grounds keep most
people from committing murder, because of the harsh way it is punished if one is caught.
I doubt that most people need such grounds to prevent them from
committing murder. You have a very low opinion of other people in
general, apparently. And your speculations regarding Dawkins are
unfounded as well as insulting.
I'm going to snip your pointless digression.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response. >>> She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would
never have suspected up to about a year ago.
Empty insults used to avoid engagement? Why do you even both to respond,
if that's all you're going to say?
The only thing you and I disagree about in this thread is whom PeeWee
Peter is insulting.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:36:17 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:
You introduce the "woke" boogeyman. You own it in all of its ignominy.
Daggett is one of those polemicists who believes in the magic of words like "bogeyman" and "ignominy" after presenting what looks like real bogeymen designed to make people spurn everyone who uses the word "woke" without condemning the straw men that Daggett talks about.
Well, two can play this game--and on new levels. Unlike Daggett, I document whereof I speak.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marching-toward-change-parents-have-no-rights-to-decline-lgbtq-education-despite-religious-convictions-provoking-a-furious-backlash/ss-AA1iCHCe
Like the one on the canceling of J.K. Rowling, this is a slide show;
the first slide reads:
"A new ruling in a court in Maryland sees parents stripped of their right to remove their children from classes related to LGBTQ+ education, sparking outrage from some parents who claim that their “religious beliefs” should be respected."
the second one gets more specific:
"A federal court ruling has shaken the education landscape, stating that parents can’t exempt their kids from reading LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County Schools."
Several slides later, we learn the identity of the one-judge court:
"Judge Deborah L. Boardman, appointed by President Biden, delivered her verdict on whether parents can opt their children out of LGBTQ+ content."
As you might expect, given Biden being in thrall towards trans issues, the answer was NO,
and Boardman refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, claiming to believe
that the parents' case was without sufficient merit.
Will the two of you ignore the issues, like you did in the case of Rowling?
Do you recall how little Daggett and Burkhard cared about the German prohibition on home
schooling [1]? Would you, at least, be opposed to a Maryland ban on home schooling?
[1] Daggett vilified me for daring to say that it was a holdover from the Nazi era,
while Burkhard told the dishonest half-truth that the Nazis slightly ameliorated the earlier policy,
conveniently neglecting to say that the Weimar Republic and earlier German regimes *allowed* private home schooling,
That nonsense did not suddenly became true over night - I gave you a detaild analysis of the
relevant provision of the Weimarer Constitution that you had mangled by combining
ignorance of German with ignorance of history (or repeated the nonsense from a website that did it, who knows). While the prohibition was not always enforced equally in all parts of Germany, th constitution created a clear prohibition of
the practice
while the Nazis introduced a law
forbidding it while allowing a few highly restricted reasons to opt out of schooling altogether.
If you mean with "opt out" "not being allowed to send your children to school because
their disability made them unworthy, in the eyes of the Nazis, of an education, then yes.
But then again you have a history on TO of downplaying the persecution of people with
learning disabilities by the Nazis
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:21:33 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
You and Peter will make the most excellent of allies. So alike in so many >ways. It will be an enjoyable sitcom this very odd couple. I’m quite >bemused. Bedfellows. Who is Felix versus Oscar?You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response.
She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would >>>> never have suspected up to about a year ago.
Empty insults used to avoid engagement? Why do you even both to respond, >>> if that's all you're going to say?
The only thing you and I disagree about in this thread is whom PeeWee
Peter is insulting.
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about are the ones by me.
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the
universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right >> and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult.
And it said exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother to read it.
I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
But more relevantly, I ask: did Dawkins ameliorate the words quoted by Ron Dean?
No need, since the words themselves do not say what you and Dean appear >> to be seeing.
There's your GIGO again. Only a simpleton would think that
I could have learned where Dawkins stands from what has
transpired on this thread so far.
Again, the quote itself is clear to those willing to read without prior bias. No need for further context.
My understanding is that you would be in agreement with
Dawkins, or at least would attach a high probability to his scenario.
The universe doesn't care about us (or about anything), and there is no >> benevolent spirit behind its existence. That has nothing to do with
whether there is such a thing as morality.
Another no-brainer from you.
Was that an answer? Were you agreeing or disagreeing? Can't you try to respond?
I ask this question of the whole readership, since your habit might result in further delays by you.
As indeed it has.???
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:21:33 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about are the ones by me.
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in
this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the
universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including
right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right >>>> and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult. And it said
exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother to read it. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you
clearly haven't done.
Dead wrong. It is PRECISELY because I had looked at it that I wrote what I did.
Nobody, least of all you, quoted anything from Dawkins that would
suggest that Ron Dean was wrong about Dawkins.
Then I have to conclude that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, because the Dawkins statement is clear, and it most
certainly doesn't say what Ron Dean thought, as pointed out by everyone
who responded to him. Well, except you.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
No wonder you love to accuse me of incorrectly reading your mind:
it's a smokescreen for all the times you *really* do it, as here.
So you're saying that isn't what you understood? Did you not say that
the Rowling quote was "consonant with Dawkins's philosophy"? The quote
that said "There is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to
use it." What does that have to do with anything Dawkins ever said?
>But all Dawkins actually said is the
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything? >>>Answered in the QUOTE OF THE WEEK (see at the end),
which hit me full force at least once in my life.
In what way is that an answer?
One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression.
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance >>>> of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?
A purer case of GIGO would be hard to find.
Dawkins might, repeat, *might* easily be amoral, yet an upright citizen, refraining from what I
think of as immoral acts, but on purely *prudential* grounds. Such grounds keep most
people from committing murder, because of the harsh way it is punished if one is caught.
I doubt that most people need such grounds to prevent them from
committing murder. You have a very low opinion of other people in
general, apparently. And your speculations regarding Dawkins are
unfounded as well as insulting.
I'm going to snip your pointless digression.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response. >>> She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would
never have suspected up to about a year ago.
Empty insults used to avoid engagement? Why do you even both to respond,
if that's all you're going to say?
The only thing you and I disagree about in this thread is whom PeeWee
Peter is insulting.
On 10/22/23 10:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don't you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except >>>> the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
"... decline in religious belief ...." "Does that mean that as
religious beliefs decline, moral behavior will also decline?"
If moral behavior is *not* declining as religious beliefs decline, that >answers your question.
On 10/22/23 10:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don't you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except >>>> the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
"... decline in religious belief ...." "Does that mean that as
religious beliefs decline, moral behavior will also decline?"
If moral behavior is *not* declining as religious beliefs decline, that >answers your question.
On 10/22/23 10:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don�t you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better
indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and
others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in
your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except >>>> the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase*
in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
"... decline in religious belief ...." "Does that mean that as
religious beliefs decline, moral behavior will also decline?"
If moral behavior is *not* declining as religious beliefs decline, that >answers your question.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettIt is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
<[email protected]> wrote:.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you you >> >> >> seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central pointDon't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not aA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza? >> >> >> >
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by >> >> >> >both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed >> >> >> by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >> >> >> >> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it >> >> >> >> but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are >> >> >> >exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you >> >> >> consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say
it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people
continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an
awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are
supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral
but one can easily deceive oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by turning on theI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term plans,
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time
factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and condemnation over much less violent things,shirking at work, helping a flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes, etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy classes. And those
On 2023-10-22 12:45 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:37:35 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>The following is all personal opinion but I believe substantial portion
wrote:
On 2023-10-20 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:19:36 -0500, DB Cates <[email protected]>You're right. I'm sorry. That comment was unnecessarily snide. At the
wrote:
On 2023-10-19 10:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0100, Ernest MajorSuch naivety is somewhat endearing.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/10/2023 09:23, Martin Harran wrote:
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >>>>>>>> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >>>>>>>> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >>>>>>>> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >>>>>>>> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it but
IME, they are a vocal minority.
They are a minority large enough to have passed firstly contributed to a
Yes vote on the Brexit referendum. (Not all Brexit supporters are >>>>>>> racist, but I'm pretty sure that a substantial proportion are. I was >>>>>>> horrified by the press campaign.) They were also a minority large enough
to give Boris Johnson a substantial parliamentary majority on a slogan >>>>>>> of "Get Brexit Done".
My belief in human nature collected some dents over this topic.
I think that was sheep being led by a clever wolf posing as a shepherd >>>>>> rather than an underlying immorality.
[I want to say something like 'Awww, isn't he a sweet thing']
--
Explaining why you think my conclusion is na�ve would contribute a lot >>>> more to the discussion than a sneering put-down.
time I thought I was being clever but looking back I see that I was
being an arse.
Apology readily accepted - I've been guilty of that myself a time or
two, making a quip that I thought was either smart or funny, only to
realise afterwards that it was neither smart nor funny!
As much as a forum such as this can provide accurate impressions, I
believe that you are, on the whole, a compassionate person with an
optimistic view of the human condition.
I'm certainly a 'glass half full' person but I don't think that
translates into naivety.
I surmise that, like most people
(me at least), you tend to restrict your personal relationships to those >>> who are at least sympathetic to your own world view. That does tend to
bias our view of the world at large.
True to an extent in that in normal life, I encounter very few people
who are prepared to defend their atheism with anything like the
assertiveness I see here. I suspect that is because ID and
fundamentalism have a much lower presence this side of the Atlantic
and those who do promote them have almost zero social and political
influence compared to the USA where they seem to have a considerable
degree of influence.
I do however enjoy and learn from debating with people who disagree
with me as I find that stimulates me to examine my own beliefs more
deeply - that is the primary reason I hang about this newsgroup. The
other reason is that I have a voracious appetite for acquiring new
knowledge and I have learned a tremendous amount here from people who
are very knowledgeable across a wide range of disciplines.
My observation of the (moral?) trajectory of politics and media
(especially social media) has left me with a rather jaded view of many
of my fellow humans [don't read the comments!]. It is this observation
that led me to conclude that you were being overly optimistic with your
comment.
Fair enough but as I said bove, I'm more of a half-full glass person.
Again, I'm sorry and will try to do better.
Done and dusted.
Follow-up: a pleasant local counter example.
We just elected the first First Nation Premier in Canada. His 15 person
cabinet has (considerable overlap here) eight people of colour. Seven
are female or non-binary, five are Indigenous and two are LGBTQ. And
mostly nothing but positive responses.
--
That's excellent. I didn't realise you are Canadian; am I right in
assuming that ID and fundamentalism are less of an issue in Canada
than in the USA? I have two brothers who lived most of their adult
lives in Ontario (one still there and one passed on) and got the
impression of a fairly open-minded society but I've never discussed
this sort of stuff with them.
has at least a passing acquaintance with the truth.
I my lifetime we have had basically 3 political parties (a fourth, the >Greens, have popped up recently and have even won a few individual >elections). The impression I had is that the parties and most of the
public while privately, within their group they would be in disbelief,
angry, appalled, grudgingly accepting, or in agreement, in public there
would be respectful disagreement.
From the right:
The Conservative party; a less rabid Republican party, until recently
the 'Progressive Conservatives (mantra; socially progressive and
financially conservative. They have now dropped the 'progressive' bit). >Consisted of a small but significant hard right group (sort of like the >traditional right wing of the Republicans), a large group of traditional >conservatives (traditional Republicans), and a significant number of >'progressive' conservatives (right leaning Democrats) ~40%
The Liberal party; militantly centrist; everything from left edge of the >conservatives to (well left of the Democrats, 'raving socialists' to >Americans), always ready to drift right or left depending on the
political winds. ~40%
The New Democratic party; fully left wing with a considerable overlap
with the left wing of the Liberals and very small rabidly left wing
group. (The whole bunch 'loony communists' to the Americans) ~20%
We have our share of fundies but ID is practically invisible. They are
vocal but we have mostly kept them under control as far as running the >country is concerned. There are large parts of how we have historically >treated marginalized in our society that we should be ashamed of (and
many of us are), but on the whole I think that we have done as well as
or better than most other countries in this regard.
What concerns me is that it appears that in the last few years we have
been 'contaminated' by what is happening in the US. Our conservatives,
the party and its supporters, a significant group, have shifted strongly
to the right and have become less accepting of any disagreement with
their opinions and in many cases their opinions seem to be based on
emotion and misinformation. We are seeing more and more of the
histrionics, verbal abuse, and physical threats (some follow-through)
seen south of the border. There is a lot of push-back but this whole
thing is a new dynamic for us. I'm worried but hopeful.
--
On 10/22/23 10:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
Firstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to >>>>>>>> helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered.
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THough >>>>>> I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to >>>>>> helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in
stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google >>>>> of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer >>>>> to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero.
In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a
rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to >>>> whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they
dedicate their lives to helping other people.
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally >>> judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
In the case you asked me to comment on, first, I know nothing about the >people you ask me to judge, including how they treat other people.
More importantly, you were changing the subject. I was agreeing with
Pinker that homicide is the best measure of moral behavior that we have.
You and I both agree that it is an imperfect measure, but you seem to
want to insist that I should therefore come up with something better.
No. If you have a better suggestion, you give it.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettIt is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
<[email protected]> wrote:.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you you >> >> seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central pointDon't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not aA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza? >> >> >
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by >> >> >both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed >> >> by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict >> >> >> around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it >> >> >> but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are >> >> >exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you >> >> consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say
it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people
continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an
awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral sentiments
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans andI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term plans,
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory -
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not >> >> >> >thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very >> >> >> carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next >> >> >large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile >> >> >> that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at >> >> >> great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against >> >> >> that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say >> >it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people >> >continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an
awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral sentimentsas divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 03:39:21 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, evenYou think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats. >> >> >> >> >>
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point >> >> >> which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept >> >> that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say
it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people
continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an >> >> awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are
supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral
plans, but one can easily deceive oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by turningI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time
factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
things, shirking at work, helping a flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes, etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy classes. AndYou example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and condemnation over much less violent
So what is your explanation for the change in general public attitudeThe public's imagination and empathy came to include the people killed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in part because those most angry with the Germans and Japanese were becoming a smaller part of the population over time. Also, fear of nuclear war
about Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was a dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was
a dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option
to impeach him. There was also the option for the Vice-President and
Cabinet to remove him under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If the
later was applied it would probably have gone to the Supreme Court, as
the parties argued whether Trump's cognitive issues qualified as
incapacity.
It wasn't that there was no way; the problem was that the lacked the
desire and/or courage to remove him.
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was a
dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option
to impeach him.
There was also the option for the Vice-President and
Cabinet to remove him under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If the
later was applied it would probably have gone to the Supreme Court, as
the parties argued whether Trump's cognitive issues qualified as incapacity.
It wasn't that there was no way; the problem was that the lacked the
desire and/or courage to remove him.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:11:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 03:39:21 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, evenYou think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats. >> >> >> >> >> >>
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point >> >> >> >> which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the
claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only
accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept >> >> >> that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say
it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people
continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an >> >> >> awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are
supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral
plans, but one can easily deceive oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by turningI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time
factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
things, shirking at work, helping a flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes, etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy classes. And
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and condemnation over much less violent
And a good thing, too, or you'd need a degree in philosophy to behave well.
So what is your explanation for the change in general public attitudeThe public's imagination and empathy came to include the people killed in Dresden
about Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in part because those most angry with the Germans and Japanese were becoming a smaller part of the population over time.
Also, fear of nuclear war made more people contemplate the possibility of nuclear devastation and develop empathy for potential, and actual past, victims.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:26:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be
to get around to it again,
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend
me a clue asbut do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give
about are the ones by me.to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
That is the last in an unbroken string for at least the last halfYou're complaining about something that happened years ago? You sure
dozen years of this claim, while never, *never*, NEVER giving any
correction. I suspect the reason is that there never were any
descriptions of your behavior that refuted what I wrote.
In particular, this "derailment" spiel of yours began in one of the
handful of threads I introduced in all caps: TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC
THEORY OF MACROEVOLTION. You kept derailing it over and over again by
telling me, >
"Make sure you don't let _______________________________ derail your
thread." Among the people whose name went in the blank was the
since-banned Dr .Dr. Kleinman. >
You never criticized *them* for trying to derail the thread.
Moreover, you didn't post on-topic to the thread until long after
your off-topic talk metamorphosed into denouncing me for boycotting
Erik Simpson. This was shortly after I had announced that I was
boycotting him and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019.
to why you say this.And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as
Your use was confusing. You were complaining that something I said
I would have thought it was obvious based on the priorThat no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
discussion in this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be
brief, just because the universe is not conscious and has no
interest in anything, >>>> including right and wrong, that
doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right and wrong,
and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't. >>>
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult.
I thought that you weren't so out of it that you don't know what a
no-brainer is.
no-brainer noun
: something that requires a minimum of thought https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no-brainer
If that's not enough for you, the webpage gives a whole raft of
synonyms and examples. >
In more formal language, you were belaboring the obvious.
But it's Ron's entire basis for that suspicion. This sounds as if you're agreeing that Ron was off base there. But you won't say it.And it said exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother toI read it, and it is completely beside the point of what Ron Dean
read it. >
suspected about Dawkins.
What most basic rules could you be referring to?I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
You avoided answering the question I asked:
<snip of things to be dealt with later, if you persist in flouting
most basic rules of logic>
There's your GIGO again. Only a simpleton would think thatBut more relevantly, I ask: did Dawkins ameliorate the wordsNo need, since the words themselves do not say what you and
quoted by Ron Dean? >>>
Dean appear to be seeing. >
I could have learned where Dawkins stands from what has
transpired on this thread so far.
Again, the quote itself is clear to those willing to read withoutDo you think it shows that Dawkins is NOT amoral?
prior bias. No need for further context. >
Will you keep your promise by answering this question?
My understanding is that you would be in agreement withAnother no-brainer from you.
Dawkins, or at least would attach a high probability to his
scenario. The universe doesn't care about us (or about
anything), and there is no benevolent spirit behind its
existence. That has nothing to do with whether there is such a
thing as morality. >
Was that an answer? Were you agreeing or disagreeing? Can't you tryIt's obvious from this that you don't know much about the word
to respond? >
"no-brainer."
???As indeed it has.I ask this question of the whole readership, since your
habit might result in further delays by you. >>>
Are you really this clueless?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:I disliked Trump, dislike Biden even more!
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was
a dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option
to impeach him. There was also the option for the Vice-President and
Cabinet to remove him under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If the
later was applied it would probably have gone to the Supreme Court, as
the parties argued whether Trump's cognitive issues qualified as
incapacity.
It wasn't that there was no way; the problem was that the lacked the
desire and/or courage to remove him.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:08:09 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was a >>> dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option
to impeach him.
Does impeachment not only apply to a specific misdeed or can a
president be impeached for just being a crap president in the opinion
of other politicians?
There was also the option for the Vice-President and
Cabinet to remove him under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If the
later was applied it would probably have gone to the Supreme Court, as
the parties argued whether Trump's cognitive issues qualified as incapacity.
That's why I said except in very extreme circumstances and, as you acknowledge, there is no guarantee that that is even possible.
It wasn't that there was no way; the problem was that the lacked the
desire and/or courage to remove him.
Even if they did desire it and found the necessary courage, I'm not
convinced they might have been able to do much if Trump had just
decided to carry on. His attempt to undermine the last election was frightening; IMO, the support he got from other politicians and from
lawyers was even more frightening.
On 10/25/23 5:59 PM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:21:33 -0700, John HarshmanHey, I'm easy. Could be both of us. But notice that you're the smart one.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/25/23 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:21:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/23 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:56:18?PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/23/23 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike with the J.K. Rowling quote, it does seem to be consonant with Dawkins's philosophy.
Ah, there was the single on-topic sentence in the whole post.
Which topic? Certainly not Tour's 60-day challenge. I do intend to get around to it again,
but do you have any idea where it got derailed? That might give me a clue as
to where to re-enter it.
No idea where it was derailed, but you have derailed the derailment.
I keep getting the impression that the only derailments you care about are the ones by me.
Your impressions are consistently wrong. You should stop getting them.
And it's wrong.
How absolutely typical of you not to leave the slightest hint as to why you say this.
I would have thought it was obvious based on the prior discussion in >>>>> this thread of Dawkins's statement. But to be brief, just because the >>>>> universe is not conscious and has no interest in anything, including >>>>> right and wrong, that doesn't imply that there is no such thing as right >>>>> and wrong, and Dawkins didn't mean that there isn't.
That no-brainer says nothing about what Dawkins DID mean.
Calling something a no-brainer is a meaningless insult. And it said
exactly what Dawkins did mean, if indeed you bother to read it. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
You would appear to have misunderstood Dawkins's statement in
exactly the same way Mr. Dean did.
No hint as to why you say "appear" or "exactly." If this habit of yours were confined
to talk.origins, that would be tolerable, but you've been indulging in it in sci.bio.paleontology.
You would have to read the prior discussion with Mr. Dean, which you >>>>> clearly haven't done.
Dead wrong. It is PRECISELY because I had looked at it that I wrote what I did.
Nobody, least of all you, quoted anything from Dawkins that would
suggest that Ron Dean was wrong about Dawkins.
Then I have to conclude that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, because the Dawkins statement is clear, and it most
certainly doesn't say what Ron Dean thought, as pointed out by everyone
who responded to him. Well, except you.
He, as you have done, understood Dawkins as
denying that right and wrong exist.
No wonder you love to accuse me of incorrectly reading your mind:
it's a smokescreen for all the times you *really* do it, as here.
So you're saying that isn't what you understood? Did you not say that
the Rowling quote was "consonant with Dawkins's philosophy"? The quote
that said "There is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to
use it." What does that have to do with anything Dawkins ever said?
>But all Dawkins actually said is the
the universe is uncaring. Do you think the universe cares about anything? >>>>Answered in the QUOTE OF THE WEEK (see at the end),
which hit me full force at least once in my life.
In what way is that an answer?
Quite likely. You have jumped into the discussion in complete ignorance >>>>> of the context, both here and in Dawkins. Was that wise?One could speculate, but maybe you
will explain.
To paraphrase the eponymous character in "Lawrence of Arabia," I will do so not because of
your unuttered speculations, nor your unhelpful implicit hopes, but because it is my pleasure to do so.
FIRST, if I saw the context, I might well get a different impression. >>>>
A purer case of GIGO would be hard to find.
Dawkins might, repeat, *might* easily be amoral, yet an upright citizen, refraining from what I
think of as immoral acts, but on purely *prudential* grounds. Such grounds keep most
people from committing murder, because of the harsh way it is punished if one is caught.
I doubt that most people need such grounds to prevent them from
committing murder. You have a very low opinion of other people in
general, apparently. And your speculations regarding Dawkins are
unfounded as well as insulting.
I'm going to snip your pointless digression.
SECOND, a far greater philosopher than Dawkins expressed the same sort of feeling in a
different way. See the Quote of the Week, after my virtual .sig.
But that's not the feeling you attributed to Dawkins, was it?
You'll have to wait until I respond to jillery's more intelligent response.
She seems of late to be more intelligent than you -- something I would >>>> never have suspected up to about a year ago.
Empty insults used to avoid engagement? Why do you even both to respond, >>> if that's all you're going to say?
The only thing you and I disagree about in this thread is whom PeeWee
Peter is insulting.
That's interesting, thanks. It sounds very similar to the Irish and
British systems. If I understand it correctly, like this side of the >Atlantic, there is a mechanism for preventing a rogue Prime Minister
from doing something seriously wrong , they can effectively be removed
by a vote of no confidence leading to a fresh election. We saw that in
the UK where Boris Johnson won a landslide majority in the general
election in December 2019 but was forced to resign by the Conservative
party little over halfway through his parliamentary term. With Liz
Truss, they got rid of her even faster after just 49 days!
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was
a dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find >something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:08:09 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was a >> dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option >to impeach him.Does impeachment not only apply to a specific misdeed or can a
president be impeached for just being a crap president in the opinion
of other politicians?
There was also the option for the Vice-President and
Cabinet to remove him under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If the
later was applied it would probably have gone to the Supreme Court, as
the parties argued whether Trump's cognitive issues qualified as incapacity. That's why I said except in very extreme circumstances and, as you acknowledge, there is no guarantee that that is even possible.
It wasn't that there was no way; the problem was that the lacked the >desire and/or courage to remove him.Even if they did desire it and found the necessary courage, I'm not convinced they might have been able to do much if Trump had just
decided to carry on. His attempt to undermine the last election was frightening; IMO, the support he got from other politicians and from
lawyers was even more frightening.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:54:13 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:11:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 03:39:21 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:56:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:It is people who step outside the norm that change it; otherwise it >> >> >> would never change. I see parallels in your argument here with the >> >> >> claims by people like Ron Dean and MarkE that most scientists only >> >> >> accept evolution because they too want to conform to the norm.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:01:52 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/18/23 10:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:15:54 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm fairly certain more people think about it seriously than you youA lot of our moral beliefs are shared by chimpanzees, monkeys, even
rats. Granted, we don't know the religious beliefs of other species,
but I don't think Genesis was written for monkeys or rats.
You think a troop of monkeys might sit around pondering the rights and
wrongs of more or less wiping out another troop because they have been
attacked by some members of that troop?
Within groups, most morality (human and ape) occurs from feeling, not
thinking.
Are you seriously suggesting that many people are not *thinking* very
carefully right now about the morality of Israel's actions in Gaza?
Don't know about Mark but I'll say I've observed that. The plurality, if not a
majority, wave it off as a hopeless quagmire with wrongs committed by
both sides going back too far to resolve so they don't want to think about
it because they concluded long ago that there are no solutions. A next
large fraction have simplistic emotional responses and refuse to dirty their
nice simple emotional reaction with _thinking_. And then some start thinking
but quickly figure that they are personally so powerless to do anything that
they might as well join the first group I mention.
seem to conclude but anyway, you seem to endorse my central point
which is that morality in humans is not just about feelings as claimed
by Mark, it involves thking which is one of the things that
distinguishes them from other species.
Between groups, to oversimplify only a little, humans are
simply not moral.
I disagree completely. To take just one example, how do you reconcile
that claim with the way that countries and many individuals have, at
great cost to themselves, taken in refugees from areas of conflict
around the world? Of course, there are people who have fought against
that welcoming of refugees and sought to minimise it if not stop it
but IME, they are a vocal minority.
Those are exceptions to the norm. They may be uplifting, but they are
exceptions.
I gave that as just one example, there are others but I'd be
intetested in hearing what the norm is that you refer to and why you
consider such things as exceptions.
The norm is to support your team.
If you were previously on the side of IsraelThere are two elements to morality. The first one is the basic concept
against Hamas, the 'knee-jerk' response is to want Israel to flatten Gaza. I
say this based, upon other things, I forum I participate in with lots of people
of divergent opinions. Essentially, I could predict what they would say. Those
who have been critical of the Likud government react another way, they say
it's bad of Hamas but what did Israel expect given their apartheid policies?
The reaction is emotional in both cases. Then, rather than thinking, people
continue to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for people.
that there is a "right" and a "wrong" - that is actually what I was >> >> >> thinking of when I linked the original development of morality to an
awareness of God.
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how >> >> we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in >> >> the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to >> >> rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat. >> >> On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for >> >> rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period >> >> of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is >> >> based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are >> >> supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet >> >> bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with >> >> a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That >> >> again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it >> >> is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral
plans, but one can easily deceive oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by turningI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time >> >> factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability >> >> to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
things, shirking at work, helping a flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes, etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy classes. And
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and condemnation over much less violent
So all those centuries of debate by philosophers and thgeologians were
just a waste of time?
And a good thing, too, or you'd need a degree in philosophy to behave well. That's why I believe that humans have an inherent sense of good andevil, it's not just learned behaviour. Have you never persuaded
yourself to do something and had a little voice aka conscience
niggling at you in the background that you shouldn't really be doing
that?
"Came to" is just handwaving.So what is your explanation for the change in general public attitudeThe public's imagination and empathy came to include the people killed in Dresden
about Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in part because those most angry with the Germans and Japanese were becoming a smaller part of the population over time.That reinforces my argument - that acceptance was based on a *feeling*
of anger, once that feeling dissipated, logical thinking came into
play.
Also, fear of nuclear war made more people contemplate the possibility of nuclear devastation and develop empathy for potential, and actual past, victims.Fear of nuclear war has nothing to do with the change of attitude
towards the bombing of Dresden.
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is
another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:31:38 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a >>>>> rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to >>>>> whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THoughFirstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>>>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>>>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered. >>>>>>>
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to >>>>>>> helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in >>>>>>> stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google >>>>>> of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer >>>>>> to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any
relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero. >>>>>
dedicate their lives to helping other people.
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally >>>> judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
In the case you asked me to comment on, first, I know nothing about the
people you ask me to judge, including how they treat other people.
That doesn't seem to stop you from making judgements about people whom
you know nothing about when they do bad things in the name of
religion.
More importantly, you were changing the subject. I was agreeing with
Pinker that homicide is the best measure of moral behavior that we have.
You and I both agree that it is an imperfect measure, but you seem to
want to insist that I should therefore come up with something better.
I don't simply regard it as an *imperfect* measure, I regard it as a
totally useless one.
No. If you have a better suggestion, you give it.
I don't have a measure, as I've told you elsethread, I think it is
foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of a time you
are living through - that can only be done by historians of the
future. You said I was "probably right" but you seem determined to
hang on to this idea that we can measure an improvement and it can be
tied to a decline in religious belief. To be honest, that comes across
to me as confirmation bias.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:22:38 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don't you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better >>>>>> indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and >>>>> others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in >>>>> your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except >>>>> the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase* >>>>> in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came
with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in
religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and
most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will
also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
"... decline in religious belief ...." "Does that mean that as
religious beliefs decline, moral behavior will also decline?"
And, as still preserved above, I went on to say "Of course not." It
really beats me how any of that can be considered as me implying that
there has been a decrease in moral standards.
On 10/26/23 3:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:materials, which seem to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of their territory - nobody
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading, horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw
sentiments as divine impulses or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, before any articulated moral system.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are
supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of people would identify their innate moral
plans, but one can easily deceive oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by turningI think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have some utility in constructing long-term
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time
factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
things, shirking at work, helping a flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes, etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy classes. And
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and condemnation over much less violent
Again I will recommend Joshua Greene's _Moral Tribes_. He makes the
point that the brain has, in effect, two routes to morality: a fast,
mostly emotion-based, one that evolved for our dealing with most cases
that come up in social tribes, and a slow reasoning-based one to handle
the exceptions. The slow system still involves emotions in at least two >ways. First, because all reasoning to an end involves emotion (else why >reason in the first place?), and second, because emotional biases can
still affect the reasoning. I think the reality is somewhere between
what Roger and Martin describe. However, I think Martin might be closer.
Notably, more than half the book is devoted to presenting a
"metamorality" by which people may make moral decisions which can be
widely accepted. Clearly, Greene believes that reasoned morality is not >only possible, but that it is important.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:56:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:08:09 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/10/2023 12:08, Martin Harran wrote:Does impeachment not only apply to a specific misdeed or can a
Again, if I understand it correctly, there is no mechanism in the USA
for reigning in an individual president except in very extreme
circumstances; even if the Republican party had decided that Trump was a >>>> dreadful president, there was no way for them to remove him. I find
something frightening about an individual having so much power and so
little constraint placed up for on them.
As long as they could get enough Democrats to agree, they had the option >>> to impeach him.
president be impeached for just being a crap president in the opinion
of other politicians?
There is nothing in the US Constitution corresponding to a no-confidence vote. You can use the mechanisms of impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," or the 25th amendment for incapacity. But you cannot, at
least in principle, just get rid of a president because he's unpopular.
(I say, "in principle" because it's hard to know how you'd stop a
majority of the House and a two thirds majority in the Senate from
impeaching and convicting an unpopular president even in the absence of
what most people would recognize as high crimes and misdemeanors.)
On 10/26/23 3:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"I think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an
idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading,
horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's
bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw materials, which seem
to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, >>>> articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do
not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of
their territory - nobody would think that anyway. But that does not
mean that moral feelings, expressed as punishment of free loading or
bonding over generosity, do not exist in other animals or provide the
substrate from which human morality evolved.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for
rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period
of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is
based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are
supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it
is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might
have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant
moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of
people would identify their innate moral sentiments as divine impulses >>>> or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to
justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first,
before any articulated moral system.
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time
factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the
consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have
some utility in constructing long-term plans, but one can easily deceive
oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to
think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about
moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by
turning on the other fellow's empathy in a certain direction and
eliciting an emotional response. Arguments about, say, physician
assisted suicide revolve more around imagining different, difficult
situations, and imagining what it would be like to be in them, than on
deductions from moral axioms. Arguments about abortion are not, I think,
won or lost based on arguing about when science says life begins
(science is not helpful there) but about stories that evoke empathy for
one side or the other.
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme
example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common,
are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and
condemnation over much less violent things, shirking at work, helping a
flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes,
etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any
considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy
classes. And those moral sentiments have counterparts in many other
social animals. Being linguistically talented and articulate, we can
generate rationales for our moral sentiments, but those rationales are
not particularly important. And a good thing, too, or you'd need a
degree in philosophy to behave well.
Again I will recommend Joshua Greene's _Moral Tribes_. He makes the
point that the brain has, in effect, two routes to morality: a fast,
mostly emotion-based, one that evolved for our dealing with most cases
that come up in social tribes, and a slow reasoning-based one to handle
the exceptions.
The slow system still involves emotions in at least two
ways. First, because all reasoning to an end involves emotion (else why reason in the first place?), and second, because emotional biases can
still affect the reasoning. I think the reality is somewhere between
what Roger and Martin describe. However, I think Martin might be closer.
Notably, more than half the book is devoted to presenting a
"metamorality" by which people may make moral decisions which can be
widely accepted. Clearly, Greene believes that reasoned morality is not
only possible, but that it is important.
On 10/26/23 3:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:22:38 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:55:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 8:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:22:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip for focus>
And again, I stress that homicide is [not] the *only* indicator of morality,
just that it is an important one.
So why don't you suggest some other measure and preferably not one >>>>>>>> that exclusively deals with USians.
It was you who brought up measuring morality. Do you have a better >>>>>>> indicator than homicide?
I'm very busy today so I won't get to other points raised by you and >>>>>> others but on that specific point, it was *you* who brought it up in >>>>>> your first response on this subthread [1] when you stated that "Except >>>>>> the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase* >>>>>> in better moral standards."
Well yes, because you had implied a decrease.
Here is what I said that you replied to:
<quote>
FWIW, I don't entirely agree with you, I think that there is more to
than that. It is equally possible that a lot of our moral beliefs came >>>> with the awareness of God - that, to me, is the real message of
Genesis for example.
To the best of my knowledge, every society that ever existed believed
in some God around whom acceptable behaviour was based. The decline in >>>> religious belief in the Western World is a relatively recent thing and >>>> most of our moral standards have been passed down from previous
generations who did base them around religious principles, especially
the 10 Commandments.
Does that mean that as religious beliefs decline, moral behaviour will >>>> also decline? Of course not and it is totally reprehensible of Ron
Dean to suggest that there is such a link.
</quote>
Where in that do you get me implying there has been a decrease in
moral standards, especially considering my last paragraph where I
castigated Ron Dean for suggesting a link between increased atheism
and declining moral standards?
"... decline in religious belief ...." "Does that mean that as
religious beliefs decline, moral behavior will also decline?"
And, as still preserved above, I went on to say "Of course not." It
really beats me how any of that can be considered as me implying that
there has been a decrease in moral standards.
You are correct; you did not say that there had been a decrease in moral >standards. However, you *did* raise the subject, and that is what I
replied to.
My apologies for taking us on this tangent.
On 10/26/23 3:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:31:38 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a >>>>>> rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to >>>>>> whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they >>>>>> dedicate their lives to helping other people.
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THoughFirstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as >>>>>>>>>> moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely >>>>>>>>>> disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>>>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered. >>>>>>>>
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to >>>>>>>> helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in >>>>>>>> stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer >>>>>>> to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any >>>>>>> relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero. >>>>>>
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally >>>>> judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
In the case you asked me to comment on, first, I know nothing about the
people you ask me to judge, including how they treat other people.
That doesn't seem to stop you from making judgements about people whom
you know nothing about when they do bad things in the name of
religion.
More importantly, you were changing the subject. I was agreeing with
Pinker that homicide is the best measure of moral behavior that we have. >>> You and I both agree that it is an imperfect measure, but you seem to
want to insist that I should therefore come up with something better.
I don't simply regard it as an *imperfect* measure, I regard it as a
totally useless one.
Oh. Well, I guess we have no common ground for any argument, then.
No. If you have a better suggestion, you give it.
I don't have a measure, as I've told you elsethread, I think it is
foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of a time you
are living through - that can only be done by historians of the
future. You said I was "probably right" but you seem determined to
hang on to this idea that we can measure an improvement and it can be
tied to a decline in religious belief. To be honest, that comes across
to me as confirmation bias.
Important correction: I never said moral improvement came from a decline
in religious belief.
If anything, I think one factor leading to moral
improvement would be an *increase* in appreciation for other religions.
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/26/23 3:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"I think you overestimate the importance of considered judgement. In my
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I think that what is fundamental to morality is not a concept or an
idea, but a feeling. You are disgusted by somebody's freeloading,
horrified by someone's cruelty, moved and inspired by someone's
bravery or generosity. To me those are the raw materials, which seem >>>>> to be shared by lots of social animals, out of which a self-conscious, >>>>> articulated idea of morality arises. Obviously non-verbal animals do >>>>> not sit around and debate the ethics of forcing another band out of
their territory - nobody would think that anyway. But that does not
mean that moral feelings, expressed as punishment of free loading or >>>>> bonding over generosity, do not exist in other animals or provide the >>>>> substrate from which human morality evolved.
I think that an important factor here is timescale. Feelings are how
we react immediately to something happening to us whereas morality in
the sense of decision-making about what is good and bad is a
considered judgement that takes longer. To take the example I gave
Daggett earlier, if someone broke into my house tonight and tried to
rape my wife or daughter I would have no hesitation in grabbing a
knife and stabbing them because I am reacting to an immediate threat.
On the other hand, I am totally opposed to capital punishment even for >>>> rape or murder, but that is a considered opinion reached over a period >>>> of time rather than a reaction to events.
The same applies with Israel right now. What they are doing in Gaza is >>>> based on an emotive reaction to what Hamas did to them, driven by a
desire for revenge as much as putting Hamas out of action. Other
Western countries looking on, not as emotively affected as Israel, are >>>> supportive of Israel's right to defend itself but are clearly
uncomfortable about what Israel is doing in Gaza.
I think we can see the same thing from past events. The Allied carpet
bombing of Dresden during World War II was every bit as bad as what
Israel are doing in Gaza. At the time it was carried out, I don't
think there was much condemnation of it but now people look back with
a sense of shame and would not support the same thing nowadays. That
again, in my opinion, is the difference between people reacting to
immediate events rather than a considered judgement. The same
principle applies to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki - very few objected at the time but very few would support it >>>> is holidays the last to associate this month nowadays.
There's nothing inherently anti-religious in such a view. God might
have set up evolution so that social cooperation and the attendant
moral feelings would evolve naturally. Eventually some subset of
people would identify their innate moral sentiments as divine impulses >>>>> or commands, or construct detailed systems of morality and ethics to >>>>> justify and reinforce those sentiments. But the feelings come first, >>>>> before any articulated moral system.
Possibly true but again it is tying in with what I said about the time >>>> factor. I think it also reflects the difference between humans and
other species, I don't think any other species has shown the ability
to stand back and come to a considered judgement as to whether
behaviour is inherently good or bad rather than just an immediate
reaction to events.
[...]
view, the emotional response is always there and drives much of the
consideration and judgement. Reflection and articulated thought have
some utility in constructing long-term plans, but one can easily deceive >>> oneself about how dispassionate one is being. One way to see this is to
think about how you change the minds of large numbers of people about
moral issues. It is not, I think, generally done by reasoning, but by
turning on the other fellow's empathy in a certain direction and
eliciting an emotional response. Arguments about, say, physician
assisted suicide revolve more around imagining different, difficult
situations, and imagining what it would be like to be in them, than on
deductions from moral axioms. Arguments about abortion are not, I think, >>> won or lost based on arguing about when science says life begins
(science is not helpful there) but about stories that evoke empathy for
one side or the other.
You example of rage in the face of a brutal crime is only one extreme
example of moral sentiments. Much more common, I mean day-to-day common, >>> are moral sentiments of approval and admiration or disapproval and
condemnation over much less violent things, shirking at work, helping a
flooded out neighbor, being kind to someone, cheating on your taxes,
etc. Those moral sentiments are what underlie and motivate any
considered judgement that occurs on reflection or in moral philosophy
classes. And those moral sentiments have counterparts in many other
social animals. Being linguistically talented and articulate, we can
generate rationales for our moral sentiments, but those rationales are
not particularly important. And a good thing, too, or you'd need a
degree in philosophy to behave well.
Again I will recommend Joshua Greene's _Moral Tribes_. He makes the
point that the brain has, in effect, two routes to morality: a fast,
mostly emotion-based, one that evolved for our dealing with most cases
that come up in social tribes, and a slow reasoning-based one to handle
the exceptions.
Is that dichotomy derived from Kahneman’s two systems?
The slow system still involves emotions in at least twoSo maybe you two have some common ground?
ways. First, because all reasoning to an end involves emotion (else why
reason in the first place?), and second, because emotional biases can
still affect the reasoning. I think the reality is somewhere between
what Roger and Martin describe. However, I think Martin might be closer.
Yeah I feel moral reasoning may be more than an after the fact rationalization of gut impulses. One may have multiple conflicting impulses to evaluate based upon the facts of the matter. This is not a contradiction of Hume’s guillotine. Yet gut impulses may break Buridan’s ass deadlocks. And reasoning too long may be a case of paralysis by analysis.
Notably, more than half the book is devoted to presenting a
"metamorality" by which people may make moral decisions which can be
widely accepted. Clearly, Greene believes that reasoned morality is not
only possible, but that it is important.
Where I draw the line is with positing a purely objective morality. I think it is intersubjective at best based upon the give and take of consensus.
And there are so many inputs like duties, rights, well-being, virtues etc.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:25:20 -0700, Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/26/23 3:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:31:38 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a >>>>>>> rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to >>>>>>> whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they >>>>>>> dedicate their lives to helping other people.
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THoughFirstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their >>>>>>>>>> only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered. >>>>>>>>>
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to >>>>>>>>> helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in >>>>>>>>> stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any >>>>>>>> relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero. >>>>>>>
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally >>>>>> judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
In the case you asked me to comment on, first, I know nothing about the >>>> people you ask me to judge, including how they treat other people.
That doesn't seem to stop you from making judgements about people whom
you know nothing about when they do bad things in the name of
religion.
More importantly, you were changing the subject. I was agreeing with
Pinker that homicide is the best measure of moral behavior that we have. >>>> You and I both agree that it is an imperfect measure, but you seem to >>>> want to insist that I should therefore come up with something better.
I don't simply regard it as an *imperfect* measure, I regard it as a
totally useless one.
Oh. Well, I guess we have no common ground for any argument, then.
No. If you have a better suggestion, you give it.
I don't have a measure, as I've told you elsethread, I think it is
foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of a time you
are living through - that can only be done by historians of the
future. You said I was "probably right" but you seem determined to
hang on to this idea that we can measure an improvement and it can be
tied to a decline in religious belief. To be honest, that comes across
to me as confirmation bias.
Important correction: I never said moral improvement came from a decline
in religious belief.
This branch of the discussion started with your statement " Except the decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase* in
better moral standards."
If anything, I think one factor leading to moral
improvement would be an *increase* in appreciation for other religions.
Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett[snip]
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:06:14?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:26:13?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>
It is a quaint suggestive schema and nothing more. The starving artist >refutes it..
I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here. At the basic >>>> levels of Physiological and Safety needs, humans will be every bit as
selfish and aggressive as other species but morality and ethics come
into play at higher levels which other species do not achieve ?
primates maybe get partway into Belonging and Love. possibly even
Esteem but certainly nothing near Aesthetic or Self-actualisation.
The notion of "higher" is a conceit.
Are you dismissing Malow?s ideas?
Actually aren't some reflective types into fasting to transcend
their reality? Moving "up" a level may entail shattering ones comfort zone
or sense of security and safety. Belonging means nothing to a contemplative >hermit such as Zarathustra.
The hierarchy of needs almost seems to say one cannot be moral unless they >are affluent enough to have all their basic needs met.
Sure it would be
nice to have that sort of equitable society and socioeconomic deprivation
may lead to desperation in certain horrific personal circumstances, but
white collar crime and immorality is not unheard of.
And who has allegedly reached such heights of self-actuality and >transcendence? Jesus and Buddha of course. The rest of us can merely aspire >as long as we are well fed, sheltered, and surrounded by caring and loving >family and friends. Those with low self-esteem or feel like impostors can >never aspire to greatness. Maybe if they follow Randroid acolyte Nat
Branden and become rational egoists they might. Albert Ellis wrote a book >challenging the mythos of self-esteem. He didn't hold Branden or Rand in
very high regard.
On 10/27/23 5:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:25:20 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/26/23 3:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 21:31:38 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/22/23 10:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:57:44 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/20/23 12:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:09:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/19/23 6:36 AM, Ernest Major wrote:In that case, it was a rather peculiar statement to make and seems a >>>>>>>> rather circuitous way of avoiding a direct answer to my question as to >>>>>>>> whether you consider them less moral than yourself even though they >>>>>>>> dedicate their lives to helping other people.
On 18/10/2023 21:01, Mark Isaak wrote:
A question comes to mind. Does that include stochastic homicide? (THoughFirstly, you are determining moral standards by what *you* regard as
moral. I know priests, for example, that have dedicated their lives to
helping people in need such as AID victims but they would completely
disagree with your opinion on some of those issues. Does that mean >>>>>>>>>>>> they are less moral than you?
For the purpose of the long historical trend I am speaking of, their
only behavior that counts is how many people they have murdered. >>>>>>>>>>
I don't imagine that the type of priest who dedicates their life to >>>>>>>>>> helping people in need is the type of priest who would engage in >>>>>>>>>> stochastic homicide.)
I'm not familiar with the term "stochastic homicide", and a quick google
of the term didn't help enough for me to answer. However, in my answer
to Martin above, I expected that the number of homicides (of any >>>>>>>>> relevant type) done by the priests would be close to or equal zero. >>>>>>>>
There COULD BE no direct answer to your question. How do *you* normally
judge people you know nothing about?
I judge them by how they treat other people.
In the case you asked me to comment on, first, I know nothing about the >>>>> people you ask me to judge, including how they treat other people.
That doesn't seem to stop you from making judgements about people whom >>>> you know nothing about when they do bad things in the name of
religion.
I don't simply regard it as an *imperfect* measure, I regard it as a
More importantly, you were changing the subject. I was agreeing with >>>>> Pinker that homicide is the best measure of moral behavior that we have. >>>>> You and I both agree that it is an imperfect measure, but you seem to >>>>> want to insist that I should therefore come up with something better. >>>>
totally useless one.
Oh. Well, I guess we have no common ground for any argument, then.
No. If you have a better suggestion, you give it.
I don't have a measure, as I've told you elsethread, I think it is
foolish to try to evaluate the overall moral standards of a time you
are living through - that can only be done by historians of the
future. You said I was "probably right" but you seem determined to
hang on to this idea that we can measure an improvement and it can be
tied to a decline in religious belief. To be honest, that comes across >>>> to me as confirmation bias.
Important correction: I never said moral improvement came from a decline >>> in religious belief.
This branch of the discussion started with your statement " Except the
decline in religious belief seems to correlate with an *increase* in
better moral standards."
Correlation != causation.
You might also have noticed that I argued
against Ron Dean making the causal claim.
If anything, I think one factor leading to moral
improvement would be an *increase* in appreciation for other religions.
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:moral sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is
another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the
In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can
only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:moral sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> [...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is
another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the
that they had LBGT friends and family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the population as a wholeIn the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the
bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in the LGBT community), more people found
a moral system that explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for before. I'm not arguing that
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay
marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can
only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the philosophically inclined among us try to find
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of ongoing full employment for moral philosophers,but not very satisfying.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>>> in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective
moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in
someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >>>> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do. >>>
was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often
in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in
the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and
family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more
comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be
increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral
issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For
people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push
them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for
before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless,
only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter
where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an
emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to
a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought,
pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying.
rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never
interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the
situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their
feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for
acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
If one considers that many of the emotions referred to by brogers are derived from
nurture as much as nature the two of you aren't far apart. This can include that some are
nurtured to have emotional attractions to a "thinking" brand of ethical philosophy,
it yields the neurochemical joys of being a good boy, even if they aren't as fast baking
as gut reactions typically are. Sure, this risks becoming distastefully _meta_, but I
expect you both get the gist.
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> [...]In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes
in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective
moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in
someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that
position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >>> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there was
a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often in
response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in the
LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and family
members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to demonize)
people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more comings
out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the population as a
whole decided that the world's happiness would be increased if they were
more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay
marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can
only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral
issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For people
of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push them to
find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for before. I'm
not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless, only that it is
not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter where your
abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a mistake to accept
its conclusions without passing them through an emotional filter. If
utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to a few for the greater
good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought, pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge
rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:moral sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the
found that they had LBGT friends and family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the population as aIn the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in the LGBT community), more people
find a moral system that explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for before. I'm not arguing
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay
marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the philosophically inclined among us try to
philosophers, but not very satisfying.I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of ongoing full employment for moral
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
Lawyer Daggett <[email protected]> wrote:.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues thereOn Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost >>>>>> universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>>> in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective >>>>> moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in >>>>> someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms. >>>> In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do. >>>
was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often >>> in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in >>> the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and >>> family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more >>> comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be
increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as >>>> Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is >>>> because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral >>> issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For
people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push >>> them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for
before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless,
only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter >>> where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an
emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to >>> a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought, >>> pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying. >> I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge >> rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never >> interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the >> situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their >> feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for
acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
If one considers that many of the emotions referred to by brogers are derived from
nurture as much as nature the two of you aren't far apart. This can include that some are
nurtured to have emotional attractions to a "thinking" brand of ethical philosophy,
it yields the neurochemical joys of being a good boy, even if they aren't as fast baking
as gut reactions typically are. Sure, this risks becoming distastefully _meta_, but I
expect you both get the gist.
There may be no particular joy in acting out of duty or in overriding that duty due to conflict with another duty or out of care for another. Might be invoking both Ross and Gilligan here.
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:moral sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the
found that they had LBGT friends and family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the population as aIn the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in the LGBT community), more people
find a moral system that explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for before. I'm not arguing
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay
marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the philosophically inclined among us try to
philosophers, but not very satisfying.I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of ongoing full employment for moral
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>>> in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective
moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in
someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >>>> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do. >>>
was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often
in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in
the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and
family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more
comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be
increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral
issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For
people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push
them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for
before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless,
only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter
where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an
emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to
a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought,
pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying.
rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never
interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the
situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their
feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for
acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
Yes, I see where you are going with reacting in the instant versus after
time for reflection or cooling down. One thing I see now, is that what I
mean by moral sentiments are most clearly sentiments that arise from
watching situations which do not directly impact you, judgements of
approval or disapproval, admiration or disdain based on how you see
someone behaving to someone else. The judgements there are still, in my
mind, basically non-rational (by which I mean nothing perjorative). So by
a moral sentiment I mean the disapproval you feel watching someone, say, slack off at work, rather than the anger you feel when you are working overtime to make up for a slacking co-worker. They certainly are not completely distinct, but I do think the difference is worth keeping in mind.
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:Sure, why not?
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues thereOn Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost >>>>>> universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>>> in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective >>>>> moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in >>>>> someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms. >>>> In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do. >>>
was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often >>> in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in >>> the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and >>> family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more >>> comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be
increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as >>>> Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is >>>> because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral >>> issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For
people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push >>> them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for
before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless,
only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter >>> where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an
emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to >>> a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought, >>> pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying. >> I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge >> rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never >> interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the >> situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their >> feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the
state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for
acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
Yes, I see where you are going with reacting in the instant versus after time for reflection or cooling down. One thing I see now, is that what I mean by moral sentiments are most clearly sentiments that arise from watching situations which do not directly impact you, judgements of approval or disapproval, admiration or disdain based on how you see someone behaving to someone else. The judgements there are still, in my mind, basically non-rational (by which I mean nothing perjorative). So by a moral sentiment I mean the disapproval you feel watching someone, say, slack off at work, rather than the anger you feel when you are working overtime to make up for a slacking co-worker. They certainly are not completely distinct, but I do think the difference is worth keeping in mind.
Reasoning might involve rethinking (sensu Adam Grant) your first impressions. Maybe the apparently slacking worker is undergoing personal turmoil or has been experiencing cognitive decline they are unaware of. Righteous indignation is a natural and understandable response. Modifying one’s own cognition in a way that keeps from overreacting to the shortcomings of others at least involves higher order emotional processing if not pure reason.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:36:24 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:Sure, why not?
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:Reasoning might involve rethinking (sensu Adam Grant) your first
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there >>>>> was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often >>>>> in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in >>>>> the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and >>>>> family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder toOn Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >>>>>> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight >>>>>> people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do. >>>>>
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost >>>>>>>> universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>>>>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of >>>>>>>> mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>>>>> in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective >>>>>>> moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in >>>>>>> someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms. >>>>>> In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more >>>>> comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be
increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>>>>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>>>>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as >>>>>> Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is >>>>>> because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>>>>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral >>>>> issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral >>>>> sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For
people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push >>>>> them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for >>>>> before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless, >>>>> only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter >>>>> where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an
emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to >>>>> a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought, >>>>> pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral >>>>> sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of >>>>> ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying. >>>> I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge >>>> rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never >>>> interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the >>>> situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning
enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their >>>> feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the >>>> state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for
acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the
absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
Yes, I see where you are going with reacting in the instant versus after >>> time for reflection or cooling down. One thing I see now, is that what I >>> mean by moral sentiments are most clearly sentiments that arise from
watching situations which do not directly impact you, judgements of
approval or disapproval, admiration or disdain based on how you see
someone behaving to someone else. The judgements there are still, in my
mind, basically non-rational (by which I mean nothing perjorative). So by >>> a moral sentiment I mean the disapproval you feel watching someone, say, >>> slack off at work, rather than the anger you feel when you are working
overtime to make up for a slacking co-worker. They certainly are not
completely distinct, but I do think the difference is worth keeping in mind.
impressions. Maybe the apparently slacking worker is undergoing personal
turmoil or has been experiencing cognitive decline they are unaware of.
Righteous indignation is a natural and understandable response. Modifying
one’s own cognition in a way that keeps from overreacting to the
shortcomings of others at least involves higher order emotional processing >> if not pure reason.
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:I was agreeing with you.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:36:24 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:Sure, why not?
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:Reasoning might involve rethinking (sensu Adam Grant) your first
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge >>>> rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight >>>>>> people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is
another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost >>>>>>>> universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes
in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective >>>>>>> moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in >>>>>>> someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>>>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms. >>>>>> In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing >>>>>> yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there >>>>> was a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often
in response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in
the LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and >>>>> family members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to
demonize) people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more
comings out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the
population as a whole decided that the world's happiness would be >>>>> increased if they were more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay
marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can
only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as >>>>>> Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My >>>>>> suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is >>>>>> because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral >>>>> issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral >>>>> sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the >>>>> philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that >>>>> explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For >>>>> people of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push >>>>> them to find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for >>>>> before. I'm not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless, >>>>> only that it is not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter
where your abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a
mistake to accept its conclusions without passing them through an >>>>> emotional filter. If utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to >>>>> a few for the greater good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought,
pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral >>>>> sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be >>>>> yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of >>>>> ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying.
interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the >>>> situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning >>>> enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas:
reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their >>>> feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the >>>> state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for >>>> acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the >>>> absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and >>>> past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
Yes, I see where you are going with reacting in the instant versus after >>> time for reflection or cooling down. One thing I see now, is that what I >>> mean by moral sentiments are most clearly sentiments that arise from
watching situations which do not directly impact you, judgements of
approval or disapproval, admiration or disdain based on how you see
someone behaving to someone else. The judgements there are still, in my >>> mind, basically non-rational (by which I mean nothing perjorative). So by
a moral sentiment I mean the disapproval you feel watching someone, say, >>> slack off at work, rather than the anger you feel when you are working >>> overtime to make up for a slacking co-worker. They certainly are not
completely distinct, but I do think the difference is worth keeping in mind.
impressions. Maybe the apparently slacking worker is undergoing personal >> turmoil or has been experiencing cognitive decline they are unaware of. >> Righteous indignation is a natural and understandable response. Modifying >> one’s own cognition in a way that keeps from overreacting to the
shortcomings of others at least involves higher order emotional processing
if not pure reason.
Well another thought is that the apparent slacker who is impacting others (and yourself) may not, using a trendy HR buzzword, have been properly “onboarded” whatever that means. They may not have ever gotten sufficient
training as to what to do, know what is expected, and feel uncomfortable asking WTF to do now they are twiddling their thumbs.
And the way you feel impacted by someone may feed into the way you feel in how it impacts others because empathy, which can be easily confused with projection. The others in your midst may not actually decode the shirker’s (mis)behavior similarly to you.
I see what you’re doing there with the “why not” putting the onus on me to
find holes in my own arguments. I’m not fully invested in them and they are
not a deep part of my identity, but I might still sulk if you say I’m wrong
:-(
Mark Isaak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/29/23 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:11:21 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues >>>>> and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is >>>>> another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming >>>>> not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right.
That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes >>>> in where people direct their empathy.
Debate happens, but effective
moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in
someone else's shoes and then to feel the moral sentiments that that >>>> position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the >>> bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
I think that in the case of gay marriage and other LGBT issues there was >> a virtuous cycle. As more LGBT people came out of the closet (often in
response to the AIDS epidemic and the emergency that that created in the >> LGBT community), more people found that they had LBGT friends and family >> members, and it's easier to empathize with (and harder to demonize)
people you know personally. That lead to reduced stigma, more comings
out, further reduced stigma, etc. I don't think that the population as a >> whole decided that the world's happiness would be increased if they were >> more accepting of LGBT people.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay >>> marriage increases the overall happiness in the world. Outlawing it can >>> only bring misery. This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to.
I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else, >>> due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
As you said in your other post, people certainly do reason about moral
issues. I'd say that that's not surprising. We have a bunch of moral
sentiments (as Hume would call them); it's hardly a shock that the
philosophically inclined among us try to find a moral system that
explains (and justifies) the set of moral sentiments we have. For people >> of the right inclination, such reasoning about morals may push them to
find empathy for sets of people they had not had empathy for before. I'm >> not arguing that moral philosophy is completely useless, only that it is >> not fundamental to morality. And I'd say that no matter where your
abstract moral reasoning takes you, you'd be making a mistake to accept >> its conclusions without passing them through an emotional filter. If
utilitarianism tells you to do something awful to a few for the greater >> good of all, and your gorge rises at the thought, pay attention to your gorge.
I also think that there's not the slightest guarantee that the moral
sentiments we have evolved as social primates can, in fact, ever be
yoked together into a consistent moral system. That's a guarantee of
ongoing full employment for moral philosophers, but not very satisfying.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I will add, if your gorge rises at the thought of a people as a group, or of people you have never interacted with, don't pay attention *only* to your gorge, but give the situation some rational thought, too.
There also occurred to me another important situation where reasoning enters morality, and in particular in changing moral ideas: reconsideration. A person makes a decision in the moment based on their feelings. Later they regret that decision. The process of reaching the state of regret may well involve other emotions, such as desire for acceptance by other people, but it may well involve reasoning in the absence of the triggering emotion, too. And reconciling present and
past attitudes will usually require some reasoning, as well.
In context of his compatibilism Dennett says: “Determinism is the claim that “there is at any instant exactly one possible future,” but this does
not imply inevitability.
We, and other autonomous agents, avoid things
every day. Determinism doesn’t “tie your hands,” nor does it prevent you
from making and then reconsidering decisions, turning over a new leaf, learning from your mistakes. Determinism is not a puppeteer controlling you.” From *I've Been Thinking* by Daniel Dennett (2023)
That reconsideration thing could tie compatibilism to morality.
One could use vicarious experience to recall when others were faced with your current circumstance and based on how you felt about perceived intentions of those actions or the outcome decide not to do that particular thing.
On 10/26/23 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:moral sentiments that that position involves, not about deducing conclusions from moral axioms.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
People gradually change their minds about all sorts of moral issues
and not just in response to external fears or influences. Abortion is
another example - it has gone in a generation from being almost
universally viewed in the Western world as a dreadful evil to becoming
not just accepted but viewed as a woman's right. That is a change of
mind based on debate and reasoning, not external factors.
I don't think the change is based on reasoning. It's based on changes in where people direct their empathy. Debate happens, but effective moral debate is about convincing someone to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes and then to feel the
In the case of gay marriage (and LGBQ+ rights generally), placing
yourself in their shoes would probably be counterproductive. Much of the bias against gays comes from the feelings of disgust when straight
people do place themselves in the gay's shoes and imagine what they do.
My moral decision on the subject comes from considering that legal gay marriage increases the overall happiness in the world.
Outlawing it can only bring misery.
This, I would say, is a reasoned approach such as
Martin refers to. I don't know if others reason the same way. My
suspicion is that a big factor in why people changed their minds is
because they came to see homosexuals as just as human as anybody else,
due to increasing (and increasingly publicized) evidence that
homosexuality is not an illness.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:29:41 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,376 |