Re: Ray Martinez

On Jun 5, 9:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 1:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip


First, "mindless" and "mind" are not antonyms, but points on a
continuum.

.Points located on the extreme opposite ends of said continuum.

Like the period in front and at the end of the above sentence. How
could they not be antonyms? Of course this question is rhetorical but
I will, of course, entertain and endure your reply.

The point that Steven is making is that "mind" and "mindless" are not
polar opposites, but a matter of degree.



There are living organisms (various plants) that have
nothing we would be inclined to call a mind, yet are still capable of
responding to their environment and modifying it.

Such as....

Sunflowers, for example, move with the sun. A Venus flytrap closes
when an insect touches one of it's trigger hairs.


The important claim in this assertion is "modifying it."

Well, it's pretty obvious when plants giving off oxygen completely
changed the world's atmosphere. But grass, for example, stabilizes
loose soil on hillsides. Trees shade the forest floor, choking out
other vegetation. Weeds often crowd out other plants. Pitcher
plants make up for poor soil by "eating" insects. There are many
other examples. If only you'd bother to learn a little about
biology, botany, and zoology, you wouldn't be quite so ignorant of
these things. .




There are other
organisms (insects) capable of quite sophisticated behavior with very
little actual intelligence: consider the sphex wasp, which engages in
sophisticated hunting behavior without, so far as we can tell,
thinking about it at all. This suggests that sophisticated abililties
can arise from relatively low levels of intelligence.

Question begging.

How does this beg any question?


Your example assumes as true what is in dispute: "....can arise from
relatively low levels of intelligence."

Steven gave several examples of the very thing you "dispute". Note
that no one other than yourself "disputes" this.

Alleged mindless process is not aware of its own existence.

Which is irrelevant. Something that's not aware of it's own
existence can still be complex.

YOUR mind
asserts its existence and its powers.

By observing several examples of it's "existence and powers".
There's nothing wrong with asserting what can be observed.

I am here to tell you that these
CLAIMS are not logical but the epitome of anti-logic.

That's your own assertion, and one not backed up by any logic, or
facts. Despite all your assertions, and bold claims, you have
never shown why processes can be observed easily are either
'illogical" or impossible.

I do not doubt
the existence of the truisms that comprise the alleged material
process. I reject that they, in tandem, act as a mechanistic process
producing its antithesis: minds.

Yet you don't give any reason why you reject it. You just assert
that it's impossible. You've been given several examples of what
you claim is impossible actually happening.

Once it is admitted that a material
process exists (natural selection, for example) this alleged process
MUST, by reason of the fact that material presupposes the absence of
Mind or Intelligence, be mindless.

Well, that's one of the places you are wrong. It's not necessary to
"presuppose" a material process is mindless. A human carving a duck
decoy, for example, is a natural process. No natural law is being
violated, and the human is acting within natural boundaries. Yet the
action itself is that of an intelligent being. There isn't any
physical evidence that natural selection is a "mindful" process, but
there's also no reason why one can't believe on faith, that a "mind"
is behind it.

Of course evolution admits that
natural selection has no mind and is mindless. The admission falsifies
and refutes the claim that it can and has produced minds.

Again, this is where you are wrong. There's no evidence that a
"mindless" process cannot produce a mind. Therefore the simple fact
that natural selection does not have a 'mind' does not falsify, or
refute the proposal that human minds came from the process that
includes natural selection.


You seem to not understand what I am saying: the admission, which is a
characteristic of its alleged action, and more importantly, the
admission is a self-evident statement of fact: material process has no
mind; therefore, these facts are the evidence that the same cannot
produce its antithesis - minds.

Once more, you are arguing from bald assertion. It's your assertion
that "mindlessness can't produce mind". No where have you
demonstrated this to be true. Repeatedly asserting a falsehood does
not make it true. You need to show some physical barrier to prevent
a mindless process from producing a creature with a mind. You keep
missing that step. You are expecting everyone to accept your
assumption, with absolutely no backing.




Do you understand my position - a position based on facts-evidence and
logic?

Your position, however, is not based on "facts-evidence". It's based
on only your own ignorance. You assume that "mindless can't produce
mind", yet you have never shown a single fact that supports that
claim.




Second, we know of no minds that are not embodied in matter. Humans
think with their brains, and things that affect the workings of their
brains, from drugs to physical trauma, affect their minds as well.
Intellectual abilities are strongly correlated with both heredity and
nutrition, strongly indicating that they result from how the brain is
put together. We know of no non-physical, or even non-material,
intelligences.

Except for God and spirit beings, true.

God and 'spirit beings' are not known to exist. I believe that God
exists, but there isn't any physical evidence to support that.




Third, we know that in practice design can be accomplished through
genetic algorithms that, themselves, possess no intelligence and no
real goal.

False. We know this is not true.

Again, Ray, you are merely asserting. Any number of examples of
this very thing can be provided.


But again, you are begging the question. You are assuming as true that
which I dispute.

Has it ever occurred to you that you dispute things for no good
reason? Steven is not "assuming" the statements he makes are true
(unlike yourself). There's actual evidence that Steven is
correct.

I explained my disputation above, that is, why your
claim above cannot be true.

But the "disputation" is based only on your own assertions, and your
own ignorance. I can declare that the "moon is made of green
cheese", and insist that it's a fact, but that declaration is
contradicted by massive amounts of evidence. Likewise, your own
assertions are refuted by massive amounts of evidence to the
contrary.




It is true that these algorithms were themselves designed
by intelligent designers,

Now you have suddenly re-defined these algorithms quite differently
from their implied definition in your previous comment.

You need to finish the paragraph. The algorithms are designed, but
they, themselves have no mind.


but they were designed in imitation of the
processes of reproduction, mutation, and natural selection found in
nature; human intelligence and goals were not built into them. At
best, you might have a case that natural selection itself is a
designed process, which would put you in the same camp as theistic or
deistic evolutionists.

In view of my comments your point is lost - I do not understand.

Because you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be
wrong. What Steven is telling you is that natural selection acts
like the algorithms, which are intelligently designed, but are
designed to act like natural selection. If you claim that natural
selection was "intelligently designed" then your position would be
near what theistic evolutionists believe, ie that God set up the
system and let it run. That is what the makers of the genetic
algorithms do. If you wish to argue that genetic algorithms require
a "mind" then you'd have to admit that natural selection suggests a
mind as well.


Natural selection does not produce minds - factually and logically
impossible by your own admissions.

Again, this is your own unsupported assertion. There's no facts, or
logic which support that claim.


Fourth, your personal indignation at a proposition is a poor guide to
its truth.

You really need to take this to heart.



snip


Here is the problem: the argument that the nested hierarchy of
homologies implies common descent is based on inference from known
effects to known causes that produce those sorts of effects:
inheritance and mutation.

All this says is that material process produced common descent-nested
hierarchies.

Which can be demonstrated by the evidence.

Again, more question begging.

What question do you feel is being begged?


Admission that material
process acts mindlessly (since it has no mind) it therefore must,
falsifies the claims of what it allegedly produces (minds).

Again, you need to show some evidence that supports your position.
All this is based on is your own bald assertions.


If the factual admission of mindlessness does not refute the claims
made in behalf of mindless process, then what does?

Well, "factual admission of mindlessness" does not refute any claims
at all. You have not shown that mindless cannot produce a creature
with a mind. Therefore nothing is refuted.


This is how idiotic evolution is: they admit their mechanism is
mindless but they cannot comprehend that the admission refutes status
as mechanism.

Perhaps it's not "evolution" which is idiotic? A mindless mechanism
does not refute the status as a mechanism. There are many mindless
mechanisms that produce the appearance of design. Any one of which
can be observed on a daily basis. As mentioned many times, crystals,
snowflakes, ocean currents, weather patterns, storms, stream banks,
etc, etc... All of the above mechanisms produce the appearance of
design. Why single out natural selection for your disbelief?




You are, of course, arguing that likewise,
design is such an inference, but it is an inference reached by
ignoring a great deal of evidence. No known designer designs suites
of artifacts that fall into consistent nested hierarchies.

How do you know this?

Because it's been studied.


This is an important point. Tim Berra showed corvette designs do just
that.

Except that those heirarchies are artificial, not natural.

Of course you could substitute any popular car that has a
history and make the same analogy.

And that analogy would be just as wrong.



Known designers routinely use similar designs for similar functions, so how
do we explain patterns in nature in which, e.g. the skeletal pattern
of a bat's wing more closely resembles, in fine detail, the skeletal
pattern of a whale's flipper than the pattern of a bird's wing or
pterosaur's wing. There is no reason, from a design standpoint, for
whale cytochrome-c to more closely resemble cow cytochrome-c than,
say, shark cytochrome-c, but there *is* a reason from an evolutionary
standpoint. Thus the pattern of evidence more closely resembles the
expected results of evolution than of special creation.

I have followed your comments in this paragraph closely. It simply
ASSERTS the patterns resultant of evolution and not special creation.

If they were by special creation, it would indicate that God is trying
to make it look like it evolved. Why would a designer make sharks
and dolphins similar in shape, and function, but make their
biochemistry, and anatomy so different?

WHY and HOW is evolution a BETTER explanation than SC?

Because it fits the evidence better, and it requires less unsupported
assumptions.

My question is
really asking why you discount SC, that is, God creating this way,
that is, the way of nested hierarchies?

Because nested hierarchies don't make sense in creation from scratch,
but do when considering descent with modification.


We also know that genetic data-studies place certain marine animals
closer to cows than, IIRC horses or donkeys. Of course this data
falsifies evolution, but the juggernaut goes on unaffected.

Why would this falsify evolution, Ray? Those "certain marine
animals" are whales, which are descended from the same group of
animals as cows are (even toed artiodactyls) . Evolution would
predict that closer related organisms would show closer genetic
structure.





Furthermore,
as noted above, your argument depends critically on the assumption
that mutation and natural selection CANNOT do the work of "design."

I said design and not "design." And I argued why the assumption is
true, especially in this message.

all you have done is asserted, without any support, that it's
impossible. You have not produced any reasons that your assertions
should be accepted.




This is a doubly dubious premise, in view not only of the success of
genetic algorithms as problem solvers, but in view of how design, as
we know it, actually works: known sorts of designers invariably depend
on both material processes (sketching, tinkering, working with stuff)
and on a generate-variants-and-test procedure that is analogous to
natural selection.

None of what you mentioned is analogous to mindless material process-
natural selection.

How would you know, Ray? You claim that natural selection doesn't
exist, so how would you know what's "analogous" with that
process? You don't seem to even grasp that your are totally
ignorant of what the process can do.

What was mentioned is better analogized to Mind or
mind. Again, your logic is perverse or entirely absent.

But only your own perverse logic is seen. Why is it "better
analogized" to mind? Please produce some evidence to support your
claim before you assume your claim is "fact".



snip



Here, again, is the problem: reproduction exists, and heredity exists,
and mutation exists, and differential reproductive success of variant
offspring exists. All of these things have been observed and
studied.

What I have called "a short list of truisms." In tandem there is no
mechanism: evidence of this conclusion is the short list.

But the mechanism is the "short list". You are arguing in a circle
here.


They become
a mechanism by assertion and Arguments from Authority. Each component
individually and in tandem is self-evidently mindless and cannot
create minds.

Once again, Ray, you are making assertions that aren't backed up.
The mechanism of evolution is not an assertion from authority, it's a
conclusions drawn from many observations. You are asserting that
"mindless cannot create minds" but have not shown any physical reason
why this claim is true. Ironically, it's you who is arguing from
authority, and, worse, the "authority" you claim is you, who is
demonstratively ignorant on all aspects of science.




In contrast, invisible designers are rather conspicuously
absent from the scientific literature;

Of course God is absent from evolutionary literature. What is the
point?

God is absent from *any* scientific literature. That's because
appeal to a supernatural being is inherently unscientific.



This means YOUR minds are doing the creating; assigning creative
powers to that which when examined cannot do what is claimed in its
behalf. Your minds are moving the sock puppet. Evolution is refuted
right here.


I find myself repeating myself again and again. Evolution is not
refuted by blatant illogic, as you demonstrate here. Steven is not
"doing the creating", it's the process of evolution. You have
claimed that evolution "when examined" can't do what it's been
directly observed to do. The problem is that you've never actually
examined evolution, or evolutionary theory. When real scientists
have examined, and experimented with evolution, they have found no
reason to assume it cannot produce the diversity of life. You have
absolutely no support for your claims of evolution being impotent.


everything said of them seems
to be based on subjective impressions and speculation untempered by
empirical testing. So on one side (evolution), you have inference to
known causes as an explanation; on the other side, you have
inconsistent speculations about an invisible Designer.

-- [snip]

How invisible Designer creates, if we are talking about the Biblical
Creator, is the easiest of all questions to answer. Any first year
theology student could answer this question. Everyone already knows
that Creationism postulates the special creation hypothesis. Surely
you are not asking me what 'special creation' means - are you?

Of course not. From what you've already said in this thread, it's
obvious that you don't know what the term "special creation" means, so
what sort of intellectual malfunction would lead us to ask you?
Beyond that, whatever you think "special creation" means, *how* is it
implemented?

Genesis plainly tells us.

But Genesis doesn't "tell us" how God created. It says that God
created, but doesn't really go into how he accomplished it.


But what difference does it make?

SC is a miracle

Which makes it inherently unscientific, and useless as an
explanation. That's why creationism cannot be, and never was
science.
..

The question goes back to Huxley: what are we supposed
to be picturing in our minds when we imagine a new kind being
created? A giant anthropomorphic hand reaching out of the clouds and
shaping dirt into life-sized clay figurines which pop into life? Some
sort of _Star Trek_ transporter effect that leaves a new kind behind
when it stops shimmering? What does God *do* when He intervenes in
nature to specially create?

Huxley was attempting to shame creationists into not being
creationists. Why don't you read Darwin 1859:490 and ask him?

Why do you assume that Huxley was "attempting to shame
creationists"? If, as you claim, creationism is the better
explanation, why would anyone be "shamed" by admitting that it depends
on magic?


And what sort of design philosophy can
account for shared pseudogenes (their differences arranged in exactly
the sort of nested hierarchy expected of common ancestry, but not from
common design) in humans and other primates?

What?

You are displaying your ignorance of science again. Humans and
other primates share genes which are "broken" in exactly the same
way. One of the most famous is the gene for making Vitamin C.
Since most primates get Vit C from their diet, they don't need this
gene, and it's become non functional, due to a mutation in some
ancient primate ancestor.

When human diet doesn't include Vit C, they get scurvy, and can
die from it. Other mammals have a functioning Vit C gene, in the
same place. Common design would suggest that humans should have a
functioning Vit C gene, but they don't. They have a gene that is
broken, exactly the same as other primates. This is strong
indication of common descent, rather than common design.




You don't have the
foggiest idea how the invisible Designer creates, or what sort of
testable predictions an invisible Designer might imply:

Genesis cosmogony says He creates by direct creation.

But what is "direct creation"? Magic isn't a scientific concept.

Are you implying
that "created" or "creation" does not mean supernatural intervention?

In all cases of creation that can be observed, it means exactly
that. Supernatural intervention has never been observed.


But the Bible tells us plainly how God acts in reality. Suppose I told
you how, what is the point?

This is a circular argument. "The Bible says God acts in reality,
and God says the Bible is true." This is why science cannot use
such a proposition. It leads in a circle. If you told Steven how,
he possibly test the mechanism, and see if it works. If you can't
provide a mechanism that God used, or it can't be tested, it's not
science.





logically,
this means that it is in fact the hardest of all questions to answer,
although you seem to find it an easy enough question to evade.

I have said it is the easiest of all to answer.

But you have shown you have no answer.


All one needs is to be
Biblically literate. But what is the point since it is a miracle -
that which you reject?


Because a miracle can't be observed, tested, or either confirmed, or
refuted. It's an inherently unscientific, and useless statement.


snip of more Ray ignored

DJT

.

Loading