Re: Challenge for Seanpit


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145732576.229223.118980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

Sean Pitman is, like you, a declared creationist, and presumably not
averse to identifying the Designer.

Upthread Sean answered Ken's questions. Ken has been exposed as hiding
a philosophical agenda under the guise of scientific enquiry.

Making assertions does not make it so.


Look Steven, you are not stupid. There are two main interpretations of
the same scientific evidence in life: atheist and theist.

No, Ray. There is no such thing as a "theist", or "atheist" interpetation
of scientific evidence. Evidence is evidence, and if you are performing
science, appeal to a supernatural being to explain evidence is strictly
disallowed. That's not to say one cannot make such an appeal, but you must
understand that such an appeal is not, and cannot be science.

Why do
atheists play this stupid game of acting like they have no bias ?

few, if any atheists I have ever met have done so.

There
is NO SUCH thing as an objective person.

Yet Ray often appeals to this mythical person when it suits him.

There are only biased persons
who can be objective - the former does not exist. Your position is
refuted from the get-go by the fact that you guys attempt to hide your
bias.

Atheists don't try to hide their bias, but since science is a way of
reducing bias in interpetation, there is not usually a need to hide such a
bias. Science is not, and has never been a provence limited to atheists.

Based on this fact you cannot be trusted to produce and
objectively interpret complicated evidence if you cannot even admit
what is not in dispute: everyone has bias which decides their
interpretation of evidence.

If it were only atheists engaged in science, you might have a slight bit of
a point. Science, however is open to anyone who cares to follow the
rules, your claim of "bias" is nonsense.


Dr. Scott: "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form
an opinion."

Apparently is is possible to expose oneself to evidence, and form an opinion
that is totally wrong. It's also possible to deny the evidence and
maintain one's preconceived opinion. That is what Creationists are best
at.


Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is
psychology.

Actually, Mr. Scott's Ph.D was in "Philosophies of Education", not in
general philosophy, or in religion. Psychology is not necessarily a "minor"
in a Ph.D. There's nothing to indicate that Mr. Scott had any special
training in psychology other than any other college grad might have.

What he is saying is that it is impossible for educated
persons to be agnostic if the stipulated meaning is "don't know".

Usually the term "agnostic" refers to a belief in a supernatural being.
Since there is no physical evidence of a supernatural being, it's quite
possible for someone to claim in good faith to be an agnostic as far as
one's religious beliefs are concerned.


We know your opinions about the evidence (supports atheism). The only
issue is why are you afraid to admit it ?

As I've pointed out before, the evidence cannot support atheism. Physical
evidence can only show the existance, or non existance of a physical being.
One cannot deny the existance of God, based only on the evidence.


I am a theist because of the evidence.

Yet when asked to present this evidence, you never produce anything that
might support your claim.


The question is, rather, if we
could actually show design, would that be any reason to suppose that
the Designer was the God of Genesis rather than one or more of the gods
of various other religious texts.

Comparitive religion study answers this question. Dr. Scott had a Ph.D.
minor in Comparitive Religion.

You claimed above that he had a minor in Psychology. Which is it?


"All major religions CLAIM their prophet speaks for God.

Well, no. Bhuddism doesn't claim to speak for God.


Christianity
is the only religion whose founder claimed to be God.

No, many religions had founders who claimed to be God, or an incarnation of
God.

Jesus was either
a nut or exactly who He claimed to be. This "nut", prior to His death,
claimed He would rise from the dead according to the promise of the
Father." (Dr. Scott).

Again, there is no physical evidence to support Jesus' claims. I accept
them on my faith in God, but I don't pretend there is any evidence to
support my belief.


Millions of persons are not having an imaginary relationship with a
non-existent Person. Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be.

Which is a religious claim. I happen to believe that it is true, but there
isn't any evidence to support my belief.


But your question, in reality, is just an excuse. If Darwinists
approached religion the same way they do science then you guys would
already know these basic answers.

Religion and science are not the same thing. "Darwinists" include many
people who are deeply and genuinely believers in God, Jesus, and his
teachings. They also accept the scientific evidence that shows that
organisms evolve.

snip

Complexity (what Paley called "contrivance") is an
argument *against* the omnipotence of the Creator, as much as it is for
His intelligence.

Here we have a Darwinist saying Paley argued against a Creator. You are
horribly confused.

No, Ray, you are missing Steven's point. Paley claimed that complexity was
an argument for God. Steven is pointing out that complexity is just as
strong an argument against God.


This is not a matter of opinion: Paley argued for a Creator.

Yes, but as Steven pointed out, Paley's arguement doesn't hold water.

As late as
1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed.

Which is your subjective, and as you admit above, biased belief. The
opinion of most philosophers is that Paley was already refuted by Hume,
before Paley even published his argument from design.

snip


No, I think Ken means,

Negative. Ken meant what he said and not what you think he should of
said.

Ray, your ability to distinguish what people mean is quite as poor as your
understanding of biology. Ken himself disagrees with you.




how does the work of design itself get done?
Humans need to make physical blueprints and notes to design anything
complex. They need to look at previous design work, modify, and test
it. It has been noted that even "design," as humans do it, looks a lot
like evolution through mutation and natural selection, although we
combine parts from different lineages more often than evolution does.
Do things like parahomologous and vestigial structures imply that the
Designer of life, likewise, had to copy and modify earlier design work?

No modifications since it implies an original error was made.

Then why do we see modifications of the "design" in any population? Some
members of a population are larger, or smaller, or lighter in color, or have
longer legs, or shorter stems, or broader leaves, etc... If all members of
a population were identical, then perhaps you might have a point.


But if your bias requires such an interpretation then by all means.

Not an "interpetation" but an observed fact.

snipping

That doesn't really answer the question of how the spoken word works,
or what effects in produces in the process of shaping matter into a new
species.

Yes it does. I have a source for my view.

But your 'source' is not a scientifc work, and does not provide any details
as to the process used.

What is your source for your
disagreement ?

The overwhelming mass of contrary evidence.



4. Is the design process ongoing? Does it occur today?

Yes to both parts of the question. Mind controls the appearance of new
species and not inantimate non-sentience/Darwinian NS. Immutable fact
of the universe: God is the Boss and in control of everything.
References available upon request.

This is less clear than you probably hope it is. Geneticists have
produced new species of fruit flies in the laboratory,

No such thing has ever happened. Fruit flies remain fruit flies.

They became a different species of fruit fly, one that could not breed with
it's parent population. That's evolution.

The
ghoulish tinkering you are alluding to produces sterile freaks that die
outside of any protective environment.

So does natural breeding in any population. A portion of any population
has fatal mutations. "sterile freaks" do not become a new species, as they
can't pass on their genes. A "protective enviroment" is one in which the
organism survives, and any enviroment can be considered 'protective', if the
organism is suited for it. Evolution selects for the present enviroment,
and if that enviroment is a scientist's lab, that's a enviroment where the
organism can survive.


Science has never crossed the natural genetic barrier.

There is no such thing as a "natural genetic barrier".

This is why
Darwin yanked the ONLY example of macroevolution from his first
"Origin" edition: bears morphing into whales.

Darwin did not propose 'bears morphing into whales" as something he actually
believed happened. He was using it as a hypothetical example. This has
been explained to you before, and you apparently failed to listen then.

Darwin had conducted
extensive artificial breeding experiments along with previous
generations of peer breeders and none ever crossed the genetic barrier.

There is no "genetic barrier" that prevents new species from occuring.


We know Darwinism asserts that nature, behind our backs in the wild,

Or under direct observation in labs, or in natural settings....

crosses the barrier

No such barrier has ever been found.


= not a shred of experimental evidence to support
this atheistic need.

Except for hundreds of controlled observational studies which show just such
a "crossing" of a non-existant barrier. For a few of such studies, see:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/
http://www.endlersr.us/alex004.pdf#search='guppy%20evolution%20speciation'


DJT





Ray


for example.
Now, it might be argued that if this happens in the lab, intelligence
is clearly involved, but it is equally clear that human intelligence is
not specifying the traits of the new species, or deliberately causing
the species (as opposed to causing the circumstances that let it
emerge). OTOH, if you assert that God's intelligence causes the
speciation, then you have God operating through natural forces to
produce natural results, which is basically the theistic-evolutionist
position.

5. Can anything be said about the nature of the designer?

"It is the nature of a person to reveal themself" (Dr. Scott). In the
Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. Scientifically, God has chosen
the answer to question # 1 as the way He reveals Himself, also, and
synonymously:

Unmeasureable intelligence and power. This nature can only be gauged
and appreciated by comparing it to the NEXT most intelligence and
power. That would be genius human designers.

As noted, the very fact that "ultra-complexity" is used to achieve
adaptions argues against "unmeasureable intelligence and power," and
for finite (if vast) power. The presence of parahomologous and
vestigial structures argues, likewise, for re-use and modification of
previous designs, and hence of finite (if vast) problem-solving
ability.

Comparison:

How much information can the most advanced computer chip hold in the
smallest storage structure ?

Whatever that is, compare it with the size and storage capacity of any
human cell.

The massive differential on both counts is intended to make people who
have God-sense conclude that only a Designer could have produced the
cell.

If you're willing to concede that God is a few thousand times smarter
than human engineers. I think orthodox theologians might find that
view heretical.

Ray

-- Steven J.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: GOD says: were they created from nothing? or they were them selves the creators??
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... as there is nothing in the way of evidence to seperate any ... religion produced concrete evidence then things would be different. ... The is NO evidence for god. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... confused as to the nature of both science and intelligent design. ... God ever worshiped does not exist and that every theology of every ... kind was the invention of crazed conspirators and that every religion ... Insisting that design is impossible is the same as claiming to know ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... they have no evidence. ... If the god of religion A is conceived of as natural and testable, ... naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: GOD says: were they created from nothing? or they were them selves the creators??
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... as there is nothing in the way of evidence to seperate any ... religion produced concrete evidence then things would be different. ... The is NO evidence for god. ...
    (talk.origins)