Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 01:00:06 -0400 Organization: What are you looking for? Lines: 103 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com> <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad> <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="26598"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:7CSlXNht/+n5ohuIPktlcfOg/gk= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 94AB522976C; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 01:00:21 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F19229758 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 01:00:19 -0400 (EDT) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1rrsjU-00000001TZq-3sTh; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 07:00:21 +0200 id BB940DC01CA; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 07:00:09 +0200 (CEST) X-Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 05:00:09 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/TLslqSSIuY8o+sLTl8M09lJhZHBhrYf8= Bytes: 5898 On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:48:04 -0400, Ron Dean wrote: >jillery wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean >> wrote: >[snip] >>=20 >>> erik simpson wrote: >>>> On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports >>>>> intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence = that >>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But >>>>> in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the = Cambrian >>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly, >>>>> geologically speaking. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is information. How and from where did the information = to >>>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present = is >>>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only >>>>> from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>> >>>> You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".=C2=A0 = It's been >>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal >>>> that's been learned about it.=C2=A0 "Intelligent design" has = presented no >>>> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the = preceding >>>> Ediacaran period.=C2=A0 In fact, it hasn't any record of = accomplishment >>>> regarding any subsequent period.=C2=A0 "It looks designed, so it = must be" >>>> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.=C2=A0 Ignorance itself = isn't >>>> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't = come >>>> from the mind.=C2=A0 It goes IN to the mind. >>>> >>> Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the >>> source of information, especially the origin of highly complex >>> information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic? >>>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaA-FcnLsF1g >>=20 >>=20 >> Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the >> past.=20 >> >Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,=20 >research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known=20 >exceptions. DNA information comes from none of the sources you identified above, therefore it doesn't exist. QED. > You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead, >> you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and >> things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them >> evidence of design. > > >Life itself is evidence of design.=20 Your comment above is not empirical evidence, but is instead a baseless conclusion. Try to recognize the difference. >Why is there life? What impelled dead=20 >matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument=20 >was that first life was a _simple_ cell. >Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily= =20 >gaps. Before you again ask mindless "why" questions, try to identify the difference between "dead" and "live". =20 =20 >> And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you >> baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural >> processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while >> making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or >> negative evidence against unguided evolution. >>=20 >> Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian >> rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show >> once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your >> poison. -- To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge