Article <D5i0O.62488$nQv.42273@fx10.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<D5i0O.62488$nQv.42273@fx10.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 02:06:26 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 269
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <D5i0O.62488$nQv.42273@fx10.iad>
References: <ajsi3jdfqcr5095itvlrddnskb56h8ihd2@4ax.com>
 <CAh_N.50541$P_e7.43732@fx09.iad>
 <q8fj3j5pou54cmk3r73aeirgp4gi8im5qv@4ax.com>
 <UIB_N.97515$lwqa.97359@fx18.iad>
 <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com>
 <c_P_N.74962$Y79f.10441@fx16.iad>
 <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com>
 <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
 <u1tq3jh8l2ng3kunvsol4bmlf13o5c58i9@4ax.com>
 <yVt%N.21046$cjh6.19355@fx48.iad>
 <u8at3jpecus5t9t082ms7tpl9m6044r4cs@4ax.com>
 <8VY%N.22579$cjh6.10015@fx48.iad>
 <ta714j9q4lpa290g7e1i3us7ia6r5m3mj7@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="48455"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <ta714j9q4lpa290g7e1i3us7ia6r5m3mj7@4ax.com>
Bytes: 15817

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 01:59:31 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vincent Haycock wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
>>>>>>> paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
>>>>>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
>>>>>> Around the same time,
>>>>>>> I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
>>>>>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
>>>>>> negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's backward.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You
>>>> became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
>>>
>>> I said "because of my reading of geology and paleontology."
>>>
>> Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
>>>
>>>>    I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
>>>>> Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution and
>>>>> non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping
>>>>> stone to atheism per se).  And of course, as I said, I found negative
>>>>> evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it
>>>>> was cartoon-like.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing about
>>>>>> either the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for
>>>>> me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
>>>>> Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
>>>>> subscribed to.
>>>>>
>>>> ID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
>>>
>>> Right, but that's how we were taught when I was growing up.  My
>>> comment was supposed to be historical, not normative.
>>>
>> There is a difference between Creationism and intelligent design, in
>> that ID does not subscribe to the Genesis narrative, Both YEC  Old Earth
>> creationism does. However, both creationism and ID both point to the
>> same apparent flaws in Evolution and observe the same empirical evidence.
> 
> Those "flaws" are pseudoscience.
 >
Again I'm not surprised: how could you or anyone know, when one refuses 
to question or examine anything of a contrary nature. Under such 
circumstances one would certainly think such flaws are pseudoscience.
> 
>>>>>> ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
>>>>>> evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design
>>>>>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
>>>>>> interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in
>>>>> phylogenetic studies of living things?
>>>>>
>>>> This is an example of interpretation to fit into a paradigm.
>>>
>>> So fit it in to your paradigm, then.  Why would the Designer create
>>> such an over-arching and ubiquitous phenomenon that is precisely what
>>> we would expect from evolution?
>>>
>> This is a excellent example of the point I've been making nested
>> hierarchies have been mutually seen as  strong empirical evidence for
>> either Evolution or ID. The concept was was first conceived by a
>> Christian who thought that an intelligent God would arrange animals and
>> plants etc in an orderly   harmonic, systematic, logical and rational
>> manor: and this he set out to find. This man was a Swedish scientist,
>> Carolus Linnaeus. He organized organisms into groups which was known at
>> the time and he characterized organisms into boxes within boxes within
>> boxes IE groups. His nested hierarchies are incomplete by today
>> standard, But the concept was his,  which he saw as evidence of  his God.
>> So, it appears the concept was appropriated by evolutionist from a
>> creation concept.
>>>
>> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/pre-1800/nested-hierarchies-the-order-of-nature-carolus-linnaeus/
> 
> No, the hierarchy was caused by evolution (as we might expect), and
> Linnaeus adapted his beliefs to that phenomenon.  And the hierarchy
> isn't harmonic or orderly -- its branches have different lengths,
> depending on when, exactly, different groups evolved. 
 >
The fact is Linnaeus lived and died before Darwin was born, so Linnaeus 
observed and described what he saw as evidence which he attributed to 
his God.
> 
>> A common designer I think is an even better explanation to the
>> observation of commonality and relationship than descent from a common
>> ancestor.
> 
> Classic creationist boilerplate.  Recall that we're dealing with more
> than one common ancestor.
 >
No, we are not according to evolution. Evolution turns to a common 
ancestor to explain a number of "coincidences" such as the fact that all 
living organisms have the same genetic code. This, rather than a common 
designer. From an engineer's prospective, if a wheel serves the need why 
invent a replacement?
> 
>> This is exactly what one would expect from an engineer. It
>> takes trust and faith to accept common ancestor, and descent. If you
>> look at the drawings you generally see big cats in the same family or
>> sub family. You see these Lions, tigers, Jaguars leopards, but each
>> specie observed is at the node or end of missing connecting link in the
>> living or fossil record. And this is the case of almost everything we
>> observe from the fossil record
>> for most animal species, according to the Late Stephen Gould and Niles
>> Eldredge. So, looking at a nested hierarchies what you see is isolated
>> species, but very few links.
> 
> Look for "stem" groups in a nested hierarchy, and those are what you
> would consider to be "links."
 >
These stem groups are not connected to later species through in any 
series of  actual intermediates in the fossil record.
But they are determined to be stem or ancestral because of similarities 
which is then offered as evidence for evolution.
> 
>> And the few links that are pointed to in
>> the fossil record are, in reality based on evolutionary theory. I'm sure
>> you are aware of
>> what Darwin said about the scarcity of intermediate links. How much
>> better off are we today with the many new species at the end of their
>> nodes that Darwin knew nothing about.
> 
> In pre-cladistic days, you would  look for "primitive" and "advanced"
> groups, and those would have been your intermediate links.  Nowadays,
> these terms aren't that common.  Instead, look for "basal" or "stem"
> groups for those links.
 >
That's just an escape.
> 
>>   You as an atheist would naturally turn to evolution, since God in your
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========