Article <pc2dnUXskuGLHGr4nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<pc2dnUXskuGLHGr4nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:47:34 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 496
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <pc2dnUXskuGLHGr4nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <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>
 <LM8IN.701577$p%Mb.613681@fx15.iad>
 <5vl2vilpidbokkqrd0v635aoudh42ql3u2@4ax.com>
 <DiuIN.572243$xHn7.66749@fx14.iad>
 <fa08vitrlk8u0dicb4lvi3e0044k8512rf@4ax.com>
 <8bpJN.709697$p%Mb.210946@fx15.iad>
 <93aa3b37-d2ee-4a52-96ed-37f668681106@gmail.com>
 <xn0ojf020296na0000@news.giganews.com> <IdLJN.133632$TSTa.32894@fx47.iad>
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="48003"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <IdLJN.133632$TSTa.32894@fx47.iad>
Bytes: 24992

On 3/17/24 4:42 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Dexter wrote:
>> erik simpson wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip uncommented text>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 "going to" about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with
>>>>>>>>>> the  first principle of the scientific method, then it follows
>>>>>>>>>> that ID is scientific.  By contrast evolution pretends that
>>>>>>>>>> observation is  false, misleading and deceptive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your comment above uses a nonsense understanding of
>>>>>>>>> "observation".  The design to which Dawkins refers is of pattern,
>>>>>>>>> a noun, not of purposeful design, a verb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     You are "interpreting"  what Dawkins said. His actual words 
>>>>>>>> were:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>>>>>>>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard
>>>>>>>> Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
>>>>>>>> Another comment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does
>>>>>>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
>>>>>>>> Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
>>>>>>>> us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The
>>>>>>>> Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above quotes show I interpreted Dawkins correctly, and show you
>>>>>>> continue to quotemine him.  Neither quote shows Dawkins implies 
>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>> as a verb is observed.  Instead, he explicitly says such 
>>>>>>> observations
>>>>>>> are illusions due to the natural but incorrect conclusions that
>>>>>>> design as a noun necessarily are purposely created by intelligence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quote mine is when the meaning of a statement is altered. The 
>>>>>> quotes I
>>>>>> offered were not altered nor was the meaning changed. So, what's your
>>>>>> problem? Dawkins is quite capable of expressing his views, so an
>>>>>> interpretation of what he wrote is unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything everybody reads and hears are interpreted.  Your objection
>>>>> above is both mindless and pointless.
>>>>>
>>>> This is idiotic! You are wrong. I did not interpret anything, I simply
>>>> quoted his own words. If there is any interpretation it's by you. The
>>>> point is, you find no fault in my comment above, so you resort to
>>>> smearing. That disguising!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledged the fact
>>>>>> that Dawkins  represents the _appearance_of design in nature to be
>>>>>> false, misleading or an illusion. There was nothing in my quotes of
>>>>>> Dawkins that proposed or implied that design was purposely created by
>>>>>> intelligence. He's an atheist, so why would I contend what you
>>>>>> suggested? I definitely would not!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then explain your purpose for asking your question immediately below:
>>>>>
>>>>> "So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual
>>>>> case?"
>>>>>
>>>> Because, it's just his opinion based upon his atheist paradigm. It's
>>>> impossible to prove or disprove. So, no one can possibly know for an
>>>> absolute certainty. It simply comes down to a belief or a faith, not
>>>> knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, you identified no observation of design as a verb, only
>>>>>>> observation of design as a noun.  Just as a thirsty desert traveler
>>>>>>> will observe a mirage and conclude water, you observe design as
>>>>>>> a noun and conclude design as a verb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I drew no such conclusions from anything Dawkins wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You, Ron Dean, observe the appearance of design in nature, and from
>>>>> that observation you conclude actual design.  You have argued this
>>>>> in the past, and your previous question implies you do again.  If
>>>>> that's not the case, then what's the point of your question?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it has the overwhelming capacity to impress us with the illusion
>>>>>>>> of design and planning. If this is not the case, then the designer
>>>>>>>> purposefully, willfully and deliberately deceived us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect.  It merely shows natural human tendencies to perceive
>>>>>>> patterns where none exist, and to perceive intent in inanimate
>>>>>>> objects,  a tendency trivially explained by natural selection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Not that I disagree with your statement, but your comment 
>>>>>> here,  has
>>>>>> no bearing on what I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the contrary, it's entirely relevant to what you wrote.  It
>>>>> identifies the fatal flaw in your line of reasoning against evolution
>>>>> and for ID.  For you to say it has no bearing shows you have no idea
>>>>> what you're talking about.
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========