Article <LM8IN.701577$p%Mb.613681@fx15.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<LM8IN.701577$p%Mb.613681@fx15.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!sewer!alphared!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!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: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 281
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <LM8IN.701577$p%Mb.613681@fx15.iad>
References: <eTGdnXH2fpEw3374nZ2dnZfqlJ_8fwAA@giganews.com>
 <l4holqFaqukU1@mid.individual.net> <Vl4FN.343607$yEgf.190186@fx09.iad>
 <l4k49vFlpj0U1@mid.individual.net> <R59FN.35073$hN14.19961@fx17.iad>
 <us50n9$38rn0$1@dont-email.me> <86msr8tztx.fsf@example.com>
 <0kimuihr7sulviejpk5dnrjcduda26f8n0@4ax.com> <86il1wty8k.fsf@example.com>
 <hleoui5fr9lhkuk3at87j8nepa0cob8hb5@4ax.com> <86le6rvetn.fsf@example.com>
 <qqiouipguu6qv08k5uiuj5lmged9a6scic@4ax.com>
 <p_0HN.545269$xHn7.365886@fx14.iad>
 <dtqquippo9sdpp0g234gl44ru4hpraaq6c@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="61579"; 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/2.53.18.1
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <dtqquippo9sdpp0g234gl44ru4hpraaq6c@4ax.com>
Bytes: 16579

jillery wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========