Article <0ap44jh32btft813diq63qfn9df0ub23e8@4ax.com>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <0ap44jh32btft813diq63qfn9df0ub23e8@4ax.com>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<0ap44jh32btft813diq63qfn9df0ub23e8@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Vincent Maycock <maycock@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:10:10 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 221
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <0ap44jh32btft813diq63qfn9df0ub23e8@4ax.com>
References: <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$cjh6.10015@fx48.iad> <ta714j9q4lpa290g7e1i3us7ia6r5m3mj7@4ax.com> <D5i0O.62488$nQv.42273@fx10.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="67592"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 13130

On Mon, 13 May 2024 02:06:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 01:59:31 -0400, Ron Dean
<snip>
>>> 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.

So evidence for evolution is evidence for 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

Yes, we are.  You don't know much about evolution, do you?  I mean,
how could you not know that there are multiple common ancestors in
evolutionary theory?

>. 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. 

It's not a coincidence; it's a result of common descent. 

>This, rather than a common 
>designer. From an engineer's prospective, if a wheel serves the need why 
>invent a replacement?

Wouldn't bat wings and bird wings involve reinventing the wheel? 

>>> 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.

Of course not.  The stem groups themselves *are* the intermediates. 

>But they are determined to be stem or ancestral because of similarities 

A creationist failed buzz-word used when struggling with the evidence
from homology for common descent. 

>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
>>> mind does not exist. Atheism like theism is a personal belief. But to no
>>> small degree each of us establishes our paradigm, and we defend it as
>>> best we can. I respect your views and I certainly have no desire to push
>>> my view on you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> IOW the
>>>>>>> paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see
>>>>>>> evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points
>>>>>>> to the identity of the designer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think you might be able to identify him/her/it if you tried
>>>>>> harder, scientifically?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One may believe based upon faith the
>>>>>>> the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha  or some other Deity but this
>>>>>>> is belief
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was
>>>>>>>>> challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also
>>>>>>>>> thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
>>>>>>>>> discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a
>>>>>>>>> coincidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did
>>>>>>>> into the subject?  If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
>>>>>>>> would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
>>>>>>>> supporting evidence to support his ideas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature.  Darwin was a
>>>>>>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
>>>>>>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10.  This naturally
>>>>>>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
>>>>>>>>> religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
>>>>>>>>> on the loss of his daughter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's your explanation for why Annie had to die?  Is it better than
>>>>>>>> my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
>>>>>>>> in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
>>>>>>>> died)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others  much
>>>>>>> younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
>>>>>>> or a disease which caused her death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why would God allow that?  I consider this to be positive evidence
>>>>>> in favor of atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And so did Darwin. Why would you think that the designer should be an on
>>>>> scene manager constantly controlling everything minute by minute. The
>>>>> fact is, it did not, instead it chose to permit reproduction by
>>>>> organisms themselves rather than create each species individualy. It
>>>>> designed the genetic code and the information needed, as well a multiple
>>>>> edit and repair machines to correct copy errors and mutations in the
>>>>> DNA. It infused almost all of the first complex modern complex animal
>>>>> phyla during the Cambrian. It created a universe beginning with then big
>>>>> bang, a universe of natural order, patterns and logic, evidenced by the
>>>>> fact that mathematics is able to describe this universe it's physical
>>>>> laws, constants many of the actions we observe Indeed Math cam explain
>>>>> what is observed. This is not a condition of blind, aimless mindless
>>>>> random activities.
>>>>
>>>> None of that is an explanation for why God would allow Annie to die.
>>>> Or are you even a Christian to begin with?  Perhaps I should've
>>>> started with that.
>>>>
>>> I think I have Christian values, but I don't attend religion services.
>>> And I don't pray. So, where does that leave me?
>> 
>> You tell me.  Does the god you believe in have Christian values?
> >
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========