Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:

> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>
>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
>>>> that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does
>>>> he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a
>>>> belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are
>>>> inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If a person
>>>> dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed
>>>> and forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's
>>>> possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>
>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which
>>>> takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything including
>>>> opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it
>>>> follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence
>>>> against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
>>>> characteristics of  religion. In the US there is the missionary
>>>> zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially
>>>> in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
>>>> harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial
>>>> commitments.
>>>>
>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
>>>> attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a wrath of
>>>> embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>
>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>
>>> Thank you for posting.
>> >
>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>
> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
> designer

It isn't.

Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
>>>>> that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does
>>>>> he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a
>>>>> belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are
>>>>> inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If a person
>>>>> dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed
>>>>> and forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's
>>>>> possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which
>>>>> takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything including
>>>>> opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it
>>>>> follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence
>>>>> against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
>>>>> characteristics of  religion. In the US there is the missionary
>>>>> zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially
>>>>> in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
>>>>> harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial
>>>>> commitments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
>>>>> attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a wrath of
>>>>> embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>> >
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>> designer
>
>It isn't.
>
>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
>it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>
I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. Arguing from
definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a
designer, since it performs the functions of a designer -
trial, error, progress. And don't get hung up on "progress"
in the human sense either; evolution has no defined goal
beyond "survive and reproduce", and what does that better
has "progressed".
>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But
>>>>>> how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an
>>>>>> opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people
>>>>>> initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If
>>>>>> a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored,
>>>>>> dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there is
>>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
>>>>>> sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
>>>>>> information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution,
>>>>>> to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
>>>>>> wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>> >
>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>
>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>> designer
>>
>>It isn't.
>>
>>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
>>to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>
> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.

No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
what evolution does.

> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
> it performs the functions of a designer -

No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
any designs.

> trial, error, progress.

Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.

Richmond wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But
>>>>>>> how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an
>>>>>>> opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people
>>>>>>> initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If
>>>>>>> a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored,
>>>>>>> dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there is
>>>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
>>>>>>> sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
>>>>>>> information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution,
>>>>>>> to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
>>>>>>> wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>
>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>> designer
>>>
>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
>>> to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>
>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>
> No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
> workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
> what evolution does.
>
>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>
> No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
> any designs.
>
I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was to
build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's God.
>
>
>> trial, error, progress.
>
> Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>

Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>
>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>
>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>> designer
>>>>
>>>> It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>
>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
>> not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
>>
>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
>>> doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
>>> designs.
>>
> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
> that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
> nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
> to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
> God.

What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But
>>>>>>> how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an
>>>>>>> opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people
>>>>>>> initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If
>>>>>>> a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored,
>>>>>>> dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there is
>>>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
>>>>>>> sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
>>>>>>> information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution,
>>>>>>> to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
>>>>>>> wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>
>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>> designer
>>>
>>>It isn't.
>>>
>>>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
>>>to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>
>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>
>No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>what evolution does.
>
OK. So, ignoring the book definitions, please explain to me
how evolutionary processes don't fulfill the *functions* of
any designer.
>
>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>
>No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>any designs.
>
Still hung up on definitions rather than looking at
function? Improvement in function does not require plans,
only results.
>
>> trial, error, progress.
>
>Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>
No, *human* designers plan. Evolution doesn't. So? Still
don't know how to address the idea of function as it applies
to all designers?
>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Richmond wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>> designer
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>
>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
>>> not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
>>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
>>>
>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
>>>> doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
>>>> designs.
>>>
>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
>> that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
>> nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
>> to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
>> God.
>
>What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
>design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
>the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
>one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
>
You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
no advance planning involved? Your examples are evidence
that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
to ensure survival and reproductive success.

Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>
>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
>>>> not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
>>>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
>>>>
>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
>>>>> doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
>>>>> designs.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
>>> that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
>>> nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
>>> to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
>>> God.
>>
>> What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
>> design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
>> the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
>> one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
>>
> You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
> supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
> works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
> no advance planning involved? Your examples are evidence
> that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
> goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
> to ensure survival and reproductive success.
>
> Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
>>
I believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does not
think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us and its
history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but the idea
that the products of evolution look/are designed.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Richmond wrote:
> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
>>>>> that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does
>>>>> he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a
>>>>> belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are
>>>>> inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If a person
>>>>> dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed
>>>>> and forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's
>>>>> possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which
>>>>> takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything including
>>>>> opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it
>>>>> follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence
>>>>> against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
>>>>> characteristics of  religion. In the US there is the missionary
>>>>> zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially
>>>>> in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
>>>>> harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial
>>>>> commitments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
>>>>> attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a wrath of
>>>>> embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>> >
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>> designer
>
> It isn't.
>
> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
> it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>
This is not exactly true. I am an Engineer MsEE, NC State University.
The engineer faced with your problem has to first know or understand
your issue. Once understood, a mental process takes place and envisions
the issue and conceives several probable or possible idea usually
settling on one, before committing to any drawings or plans. Then
testing and re-testing occurs. IF failure, it's back to the drawing
board. In designing there is an element of trial and error.
It's essential to come to grasp an overall concept. Unless you're a
super genus, it's often important to take the overall concept and break
it down into small sections which, when they are brought together they
have the facility to meet the need or the requirement. In this way the
managing engineer can take a huge designing program, break it down to a
group of engineers, each with a specific task. And when the sections
are brought together large complex jobs can be accomplished.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:05 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:

>On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
>>>>> not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
>>>>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
>>>>>> doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
>>>>>> designs.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
>>>> that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
>>>> nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
>>>> to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
>>>> God.
>>>
>>> What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
>>> design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
>>> the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
>>> one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
>>>
>> You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
>> supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
>> works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
>> no advance planning involved? Your examples are evidence
>> that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
>> goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
>> to ensure survival and reproductive success.
>>
>> Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
>>>
>I believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does not
>think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us and its
>history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but the idea
>that the products of evolution look/are designed.
>
Could be, but the assertion that evolution is not a
designer, using a dictionary definition of "designer" he
cites above, rather than considering what "designer"
actually means, tends to refute that.
>
--

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>
>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
>>>> not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
>>>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
>>>>
>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
>>>>> doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
>>>>> designs.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
>>> that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
>>> nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
>>> to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
>>> God.
>>
>>What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
>>design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
>>the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
>>one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
>>
> You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
> supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
> works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
> no advance planning involved?

They are examples of lack of design, as I said.

> Your examples are evidence
> that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
> goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
> to ensure survival and reproductive success.

Yes, exactly.

It really is a waste of time if you can't follow the conversation.

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:

> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:05 -0600, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>
>>On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>
>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, I think most people initially are inclined to "like
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a dislike" the discovery.  If a person dislikes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for
>>>>>>>>>>>> positive, supportive evidence. If in this search one
>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to discover evidence contrary or contradictory to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain  the contrary evidence away, or go searching for
>>>>>>>>>>>> some means to fit the contradictory evidence into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory or finally to label the contradictory evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the main driving force enabling evolution to become an
>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming paradigm in the minds of some people. Again
>>>>>>>>>>>> with this approach it's possible to "prove" anything the
>>>>>>>>>>>> heart desires to be real or true. In this sense evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's
>>>>>>>>>>>> identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, there is the trust that the evidence exist, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> just not yet found. The final conclusion becomes central to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the paradigm, which takes precedence, supremacy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> priority over everything including opinion, observation,
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that
>>>>>>>>>>>> there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence against
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of  religion. In the US there is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing
>>>>>>>>>>>> data or information is met with harsh condemnation and even
>>>>>>>>>>>> to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and
>>>>>>>>>>>> impervious to criticism, but because of a personal identity
>>>>>>>>>>>> with evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> attack, rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and
>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to
>>>>>>>>>> be designed then it is designed. But if you trust
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionist, what appears to be design is just an illusion,
>>>>>>>>>> a chimera or a mirage, if so then it's a deliberate and
>>>>>>>>>> willful deception by God. . David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is
>>>>>>>>> a designer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I
>>>>>> am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior
>>>>>> to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what
>>>>>> evolution does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't
>>>>>>> especially persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a
>>>>>>> designer, since it performs the functions of a designer - >> No
>>>>>>> it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >>
>>>>>>> have >> any designs.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm
>>>>> convinced, that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he
>>>>> attributed design in nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in
>>>>> writing his "origins" was to build and promote a case for design
>>>>> in nature _without_ Paley's God.
>>>>
>>>> What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of
>>>> lack of design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which
>>>> cannot fly, the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose
>>>> eye moves from one side of its head to the other so it can become a
>>>> flatfish.
>>>>
>>> You do realize, of course, that every example you listed supports
>>> the "good enough" assumption for how evolution works, right? And
>>> that they all are evidence that there is no advance planning
>>> involved? Your examples are evidence that evolution is a blind
>>> process which has no predetermined goal, and only requires that its
>>> products work well enough to ensure survival and reproductive
>>> success.
>>>
>>> Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
>>>>
>>I believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does
>>not think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us
>>and its history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but
>>the idea that the products of evolution look/are designed.
>>
> Could be, but the assertion that evolution is not a designer, using a
> dictionary definition of "designer" he cites above, rather than
> considering what "designer" actually means, tends to refute that.

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But
>>>>>>> how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an
>>>>>>> opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people
>>>>>>> initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery.  If
>>>>>>> a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored,
>>>>>>> dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
>>>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
>>>>>>> reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there is
>>>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
>>>>>>> sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
>>>>>>> information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution,
>>>>>>> to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
>>>>>>> wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>
>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>> designer
>>>
>>>It isn't.
>>>
>>>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
>>>to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>
>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>
>No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>what evolution does.
>
>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>
>No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>any designs.
>
>
>> trial, error, progress.
>
>Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.

Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.

Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.

It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
design.

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

On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> Patterns exist
> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
> a window,

They do indeed!

> and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
> or purpose or plan.

You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!

I think you are wrong.

--
David

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>
>>>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>
>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>> designer
>>>>
>>>>It isn't.
>>>>
>>>>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>
>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>
>>No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>what evolution does.
>>
>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>
>>No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>any designs.
>>
>>
>>> trial, error, progress.
>>
>>Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>
>
> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
> the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>
> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
> or purpose or plan.
>
> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
> exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
> design.

Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
of shit.

He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.

The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.

I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.

On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

>On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patterns exist
>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>> a window,
>
>They do indeed!
>
>> and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
>> or purpose or plan.
>
>You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!

I acknowledge I can't know with absolute certainty it's true, just as
I can't know some intelligence didn't purposely make these patterns
appear as if they followed statistical probability.

However, the standard is to identify evidence for a claim. Since
these patterns are consistent with unguided natural processes, that is
sufficient to support my claim. What evidence do you have the
existence of these patterns required intelligence?

>I think you are wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is as good as any other
baseless opinion.

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

On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>> designer
>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>
>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>>
>>>No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>>workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>>what evolution does.
>>>
>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>>
>>>No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>>any designs.
>>>
>>>
>>>> trial, error, progress.
>>>
>>>Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>>
>>
>> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
>> the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>>
>> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
>> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
>> or purpose or plan.
>>
>> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
>> exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
>> design.
>
>Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
>of shit.
>
>He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.

More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
designed. His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.

>The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>
>I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
>about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.

These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no
"going to" about it.

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

jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>
>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>>> workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>>> what evolution does.
>>>>
>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>>> any designs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> trial, error, progress.
>>>>
>>>> Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
>>> the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>>>
>>> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
>>> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
>>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
>>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
>>> or purpose or plan.
>>>
>>> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
>>> exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
>>> design.
>>
>> Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
>> of shit.
>>
>> He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
>
>
> More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
> designed. His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
>
Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the first
principle of the scientific method.
>
>
>> The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>>
>> I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
>> about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
>
>
> These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no
> "going to" about it.
>
This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first
principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false,
misleading and deceptive.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On 09/03/2024 17:27, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>>>> workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>>>> what evolution does.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>>>> any designs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> trial, error, progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
>>>> the word.  However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
>>>> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
>>>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform.  Patterns exist
>>>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>>>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
>>>> or purpose or plan.
>>>>
>>>> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
>>>> exists.  That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
>>>> design.
>>>
>>> Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
>>> of shit.
>>>
>>> He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
>>
>>
>> More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
>> designed.  His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
> >
> Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the first
> principle of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>>> The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>>>
>>> I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
>>> about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
>>
>>
>> These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist.  There's no
>> "going to" about it.
>>
> This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first
> principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
> scientific.  By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false,
> misleading and deceptive.

On 3/9/24 10:10 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 09/03/2024 17:27, Ron Dean wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>>>>> workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>>>>> what evolution does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>>>>> any designs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> trial, error, progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
>>>>> the word.  However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
>>>>> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
>>>>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform.  Patterns exist
>>>>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>>>>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
>>>>> or purpose or plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
>>>>> exists.  That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
>>>>> design.
>>>>
>>>> Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
>>>> of shit.
>>>>
>>>> He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
>>>
>>>
>>> More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
>>> designed.  His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
>>  >
>> Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the
>> first principle of the scientific method.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>>>>
>>>> I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
>>>> about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist.  There's no
>>> "going to" about it.
>>>
>> This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the
>> first principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
>> scientific.  By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false,
>> misleading and deceptive.
>
> Do you also consider that platygaeanism to be scientific? I reckon that
> the earth being flat has a better claim to observational status than
> life being designed - at least it is locally flat. (For that matter I've
> never seen you articulate an argument why particular features of life
> are designed; you've made many claims, but not advanced arguments in
> support of those claims.)
>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>>
>
Like the spacetime manifold, the

On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 10:40:37 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:05 -0600, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>>On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, I think most people initially are inclined to "like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a dislike" the discovery.  If a person dislikes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive, supportive evidence. If in this search one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to discover evidence contrary or contradictory to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain  the contrary evidence away, or go searching for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some means to fit the contradictory evidence into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory or finally to label the contradictory evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main driving force enabling evolution to become an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming paradigm in the minds of some people. Again
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this approach it's possible to "prove" anything the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart desires to be real or true. In this sense evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, there is the trust that the evidence exist, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not yet found. The final conclusion becomes central to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paradigm, which takes precedence, supremacy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority over everything including opinion, observation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of  religion. In the US there is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data or information is met with harsh condemnation and even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impervious to criticism, but because of a personal identity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack, rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to
>>>>>>>>>>> be designed then it is designed. But if you trust
>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionist, what appears to be design is just an illusion,
>>>>>>>>>>> a chimera or a mirage, if so then it's a deliberate and
>>>>>>>>>>> willful deception by God. . David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is
>>>>>>>>>> a designer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I
>>>>>>> am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior
>>>>>>> to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what
>>>>>>> evolution does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't
>>>>>>>> especially persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a
>>>>>>>> designer, since it performs the functions of a designer - >> No
>>>>>>>> it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >>
>>>>>>>> have >> any designs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm
>>>>>> convinced, that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he
>>>>>> attributed design in nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in
>>>>>> writing his "origins" was to build and promote a case for design
>>>>>> in nature _without_ Paley's God.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of
>>>>> lack of design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which
>>>>> cannot fly, the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose
>>>>> eye moves from one side of its head to the other so it can become a
>>>>> flatfish.
>>>>>
>>>> You do realize, of course, that every example you listed supports
>>>> the "good enough" assumption for how evolution works, right? And
>>>> that they all are evidence that there is no advance planning
>>>> involved? Your examples are evidence that evolution is a blind
>>>> process which has no predetermined goal, and only requires that its
>>>> products work well enough to ensure survival and reproductive
>>>> success.
>>>>
>>>> Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
>>>>>
>>>I believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does
>>>not think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us
>>>and its history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but
>>>the idea that the products of evolution look/are designed.
>>>
>> Could be, but the assertion that evolution is not a designer, using a
>> dictionary definition of "designer" he cites above, rather than
>> considering what "designer" actually means, tends to refute that.
>
>By "what designer actually means" you mean what you redefined it to mean
>so that you could claim evolution designs.
>
No, but thanks for playing.

On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
<david@nomail.afraid.org>:

>On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patterns exist
>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>> a window,
>
>They do indeed!
>
>> and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
>> or purpose or plan.
>
>You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
>
"Know"? Of course not, but in the absence of evidence
regarding an intelligent designer (which has never been
demonstrated), and with evidence that it can be accomplished
via only natural processes (which *has* been demonstrated)
it's the way to bet.
>
>I think you are wrong.
>
Your privilege; many people think many things.
>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
>>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
>>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
>>>>>>>>>>> the discovery.  If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
>>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
>>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
>>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
>>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain  the contrary
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
>>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
>>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
>>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
>>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
>>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
>>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
>>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
>>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of  religion. In the US there
>>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
>>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
>>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
>>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
>>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
>>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
>>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
>>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
>>>>>>>>> God. . David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
>>>>> workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
>>>>> what evolution does.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
>>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
>>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
>>>>> any designs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> trial, error, progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
>>>> the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
>>>> designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
>>>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
>>>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>>>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
>>>> or purpose or plan.
>>>>
>>>> It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
>>>> exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
>>>> design.
>>>
>>> Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
>>> of shit.
>>>
>>> He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
>>
>>
>> More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
>> designed. His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
> >
>Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the first
>principle of the scientific method.
>
>>> The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>>>
>>> I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
>>> about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
>>
>>
>> These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no
>> "going to" about it.
>>
>This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first
>principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
>scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false,
>misleading and deceptive.

On 9 Mar 2024 at 11:41:03 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patterns exist
>>> everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
>>> a window,
>>
>> They do indeed!
>>
>>> and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
>>> or purpose or plan.
>>
>> You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
>
>
> I acknowledge I can't know with absolute certainty it's true, just as
> I can't know some intelligence didn't purposely make these patterns
> appear as if they followed statistical probability.
>
> However, the standard is to identify evidence for a claim. Since
> these patterns are consistent with unguided natural processes, that is
> sufficient to support my claim. What evidence do you have the
> existence of these patterns required intelligence?

The evidence may be found here:-

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

>> I think you are wrong.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, which is as good as any other
> baseless opinion.

If I had wanted YOUR opinion I'd have given it to you!

--
David
Believe it and you'll see it!

On 3/8/24 9:09 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>> designer
>
> It isn't.
>
> Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
> it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"

Fair point. On the other hand, evolution and designers both do their
work using mostly the same processes, especially modifying existing
designs and throwing out what doesn't work. There are a few differences,
such as preparing preliminary drawings. Those differences show very
clearly that life does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, look like
the product of an intelligent designer.

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