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 Return-Path: <poster@giganews.com> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id E62B522976C; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:44:32 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43D5229758 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:44:30 -0400 (EDT) id 9C44C7D121; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB37D009 for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:48:07 +0000 (UTC) by egress-mx.phmgmt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89AE607EF for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:47:31 +0000 (UTC) by serv-1.ord.giganews.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1AA4404BD for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:47:35 -0500 (CDT) by serv-1.i.ord.giganews.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 42HNlYYt023808; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:47:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: serv-1.i.ord.giganews.com: news set sender to poster@giganews.com using -f X-Path: news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:47:34 +0000 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <IdLJN.133632$TSTa.32894@fx47.iad> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 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 ==========