Article <7uKcnU0iRLDgVN_7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.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 <7uKcnU0iRLDgVN_7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<7uKcnU0iRLDgVN_7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!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: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 19:16:29 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 377
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <7uKcnU0iRLDgVN_7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <3n8m2jtvhd0nahms2un4i2gjbt1t6bpbk2@4ax.com>
 <uca_N.78951$TyYf.63711@fx15.iad>
 <ajsi3jdfqcr5095itvlrddnskb56h8ihd2@4ax.com>
 <CAh_N.50541$P_e7.43732@fx09.iad>
 <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>
 <754957289ba1bbca7ca0e4ee849917ca@www.novabbs.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="77787"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <754957289ba1bbca7ca0e4ee849917ca@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 22857

On 5/13/24 12:47 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
> 
>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vincent Haycock wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
>>>>>>> paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a 
>>>>>>> cartoon
>>>>>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
>>>>>> Around the same time,
>>>>>>> I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any 
>>>>>>> sense.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
>>>>>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
>>>>>> negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's backward.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You
>>>> became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
>>>
>>> I said "because of my reading of geology and paleontology."
>>  >
>> Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
>>>
>>>>   I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
>>>>> Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution and
>>>>> non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping
>>>>> stone to atheism per se).  And of course, as I said, I found negative
>>>>> evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it
>>>>> was cartoon-like.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing about
>>>>>> either the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for
>>>>> me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
>>>>> Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
>>>>> subscribed to.
>>>>>
>>>> ID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
>>>
>>> Right, but that's how we were taught when I was growing up.  My
>>> comment was supposed to be historical, not normative.
>>  >
>> There is a difference between Creationism and intelligent design, in 
>> that ID does not subscribe to the Genesis narrative, Both YEC  Old 
>> Earth creationism does. However, both creationism and ID both point to 
>> the same apparent flaws in Evolution and observe the same empirical 
>> evidence.
>>>
>>>>>> ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
>>>>>> evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent 
>>>>>> design
>>>>>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
>>>>>> interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in
>>>>> phylogenetic studies of living things?
>>>>>
>>>> This is an example of interpretation to fit into a paradigm.
>>>
>>> So fit it in to your paradigm, then.  Why would the Designer create
>>> such an over-arching and ubiquitous phenomenon that is precisely what
>>> we would expect from evolution?
>>  >
>> This is a excellent example of the point I've been making nested 
>> hierarchies have been mutually seen as  strong empirical evidence for 
>> either Evolution or ID. The concept was was first conceived by a 
>> Christian who thought that an intelligent God would arrange animals 
>> and plants etc in an orderly   harmonic, systematic, logical and 
>> rational manor: and this he set out to find. This man was a Swedish 
>> scientist, Carolus Linnaeus. He organized organisms into groups which 
>> was known at the time and he characterized organisms into boxes within 
>> boxes within boxes IE groups. His nested hierarchies are incomplete by 
>> today standard, But the concept was his,  which he saw as evidence of  
>> his God.
>> So, it appears the concept was appropriated by evolutionist from a 
>> creation concept.
> 
> again, pretty much wrong in every respect. Let's start with the last
> sentence:
> 
> yes, all science is cumulative, that is new theories are always built
> on old theories, and incorporate those parts that stood the test of 
> time. Which is why eg. Newtonian mechanics is now a proper part of
> the theory of relativity. And the same held true for Linnaeus, who did 
> not invent the concept of nested hierarchy, he merely applied it with
> particular rigour, and more data than anyone before him. The concept 
> goes back to Aristotle's categories and traveled to Linneaus via
> the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. Who, funnily enough, was also the 
> author of a book titled "Against the Christians". So you could say he
> appropriated a pagan and/or atheist concept.
> Linnaeus did not just apply the schema to biology and living things, but
> also to minerals, rocks, mountain formations and planets. But there it 
> didn't work and now is all but forgotten.
> And there we have the next problem for you and
> your use of Linneaus. Linneaus believed of course that God had created
> everything, not just living things. Yet the nested hierarchies that we
> find in biology don't work for minerals. From an evolution perspective,
> that is of course no surprise: descent with modification will always
> create natural nested hierarchies, and few other things will. But if 
> nested hierarchies were also what we should expect from creation by God,
> then the absence of natural nested hierarchies in the rest of the world 
> should indicate that they are not the result of design, so Christianity
> would be disproven.
> 
> Generally, Linnaeus SO doesn't work for you, on pretty much every level. 
> First, he grouped humans among the apes,these among quadrupeds, and 
> these in animalia. Yes, that worried him from a theological perspective, 
> but when attacked for it, he was adamant that that was just what the 
> data showed. He challenged his critics to find one objective fact that 
> would allow them to distinguish humans from other apes (Carl Linnaeus to 
> Johann Georg Gmelin, letter 25 February 1747) So going back
> to your nonsense about the alleged moral implications of nesting humans
> among other animal groups, Linneaus did this long before Darwin.
> Oh, and as we are at it, unlike Darwin he also introduced subcategories
> (albeit as variations, not species) for humans, and not only that, he 
> ranked them. So Black africans according to his schema were:
> from their temperament phlegmatic and lazy, biologically having dark hair,
> with many twisting braids; silky skin; flat nose; swollen lips; Women
> with elongated labia; breasts lactating profusely and from their
> character Sly, sluggish, and neglectful. White people by contrast were by
> temperament sanguine and  strong, biologically with plenty of yellow 
> hair; blue eyes, and from their character light, wise, and  inventors etc.
> Modern scientific racism has its origins here rather than in Darwin.
> 
> Now, did he as you claim consider the nested hierarchies as evidence for
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========