Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.nntp4.net!nntp.terraraq.uk!news1.firedrake.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:53:05 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ca9e1a646bf5167e5b8084775100066d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <utjrbi$2susg$1@dont-email.me> <ebfrvidkrucpm7kv4bctsnrgksg8hjn3go@4ax.com> <cBYNN.132676$GX69.32667@fx46.iad> <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com> <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad> <f43i0jh8u89nlndn5137sfa0uo7b0isoik@4ax.com> <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.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="35610"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 5776
Lines: 84

Ron Dean wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 
>>> 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".  It's been
>>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
>>>> that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
>>>> such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
>>>> Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
>>>> regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
>>>> isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
>>>> bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
>>>> from the mind.  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=aA-FcnLsF1g
>> 
>> 
>> 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. 
>>
> Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication, 
> research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known 
> exceptions.

And you see anywhere in a cell books, research, experience etc? I
only see some rather complex chemical reactions. 

Or do you mean you have access to the books, observations communications
research etc that the designer of cells used Now that would be interesting, 
and the first step to a proper ID theory, so I'd be agog to hear
you talk more about them!


>  >
>   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. Why is there life? What impelled dead 
> matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument 
> was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
> Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily 
> gaps.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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
>>