Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity

On Oct 12, 4:06 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection.

Ray, could you define the following terms and tell us exactly why you
think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them
actually does not exist in nature?

Two part question.


microevolution

Definition (D): Continuous slight beneficial change produced by
unguided material causation.

Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
and not unguided material causation. Additional empirical evidence
includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
absence of descendants.

common ancestry

D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).

F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.

random mutation

D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.

F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).

natural selection

D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
of evolutionary change.

F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
causation existing in nature.


There is
nothing creationistic about these facts.

I certainly agree that they are all "facts", if by that you mean that
they are so well supported by empirical evidence that one would have
to be a deluded fool to claim that they don't exist in nature.  But,
since creationism by a supernatural entity can perform that 'creation'
by whatever mechanism he chooses, it certainly makes sense that the
mechanism he used would be consistent with these "facts" rather than
inconsistent with them.


Non-sequitur.

My comment was directed at Sean, who apparently is considered a
Creationist. His acceptance of said evolution factS refutes the belief
that he is a Creationist.


All of the former were
originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
causation (= absence of Guide).

I think that should be *apparent* absence of a Guide and *apparently*
unguided material causation.  Just like how God, if he exists, works
through the *apparently* unguided material causation we call
'gravity'.  Denial of 'gravity', of course, is a cause of 'levity'.

[snip]



The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
genuinely confused.

Which, of course, could be why is a lying.  But you are assuming that
your lies are better lies than Sean's lies, because your lies are
bigger and deny things like the (as far as we can tell) randomness of
mutation that even Sean cannot swallow.  Which merely means that even
Sean has a tenuous grasp on empirical reality that you lack.

Howard has suddenly stopped debating or discussing and strayed away
from the issues of my post that he is supposed to reply to. His
parting shot of endorsing Sean and rejecting myself in contrast
supports my arguments that Sean is not a Creationist, but an
Evolutionist. The Atheists (secular Fundamentalists) and the YECs
(religious Fundamentalists) are conducting the same business on
opposite sides of the street. I am relieved to be disapproved by these
kind.

Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan-
Designist, species immutabilist.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Six Simple And Reasonable Questions ...
    ... That's evidently untrue, Sean being one example. ... intelligence to be operating in nature. ... that presupposes the alleged fact of unguided material causation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Only True Creationists @ Talk Origins....
    ... concept of evolution to exist in nature because the evidence does not ... is Sean Pitman. ... Historic Creationism, as it existed pre-1859, makes two main claims: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The contrast between Sean Pitman and Harlan Bretz
    ... Sean himself, and let him answer your objections point by point. ... and how you think that the bogus propaganda ... creationism that came before the ID creationist scam? ... than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The problem with all these "Debates".
    ... Creationism, for example certain 9/11 Conspiracy Theories about ...  When someone gets cauight lying I call them a liar. ... There is no doubt that at some level Sean knows that he is lying. ... the brain dead and dishonest. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The contrast between Sean Pitman and Harlan Bretz
    ... Sean himself, and let him answer your objections point by point. ... If dishonest and bogus ... creationism that came before the ID creationist scam? ...
    (talk.origins)