Article <vqtmo0$32o3u$2@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqtmo0$32o3u$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Observe_the_trend=2E_It=E2=80=99s_happening=2E_Give?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_it_time=2E?=
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 15:25:36 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqtmo0$32o3u$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vqar6h$2lnbh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqehpj$3g1ui$1@dont-email.me> <vqghcq$41r$1@dont-email.me>
 <af429d58c8a8f999cc9c5b674a54e8c4@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqohqc$1qn8i$1@dont-email.me>
 <846a8431496562385fc3e83484712749@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqralh$2fuat$1@dont-email.me>
 <6097870255ae5a922d8ed5ab74a99696@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="24146"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lp0ArjB6mbJFTjltdVHL3XqrAbM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6097870255ae5a922d8ed5ab74a99696@www.novabbs.com>
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 9128

On 13/03/2025 4:03 am, LDagget wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 6:47:10 +0000, MarkE wrote:
> 
>> On 12/03/2025 11:09 am, LDagget wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:18:00 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:
> ...
>>> small selection of posts.
>>>
>>
>> Look, we'll probably always strongly disagree, but a rhetorical boxing
>> match is at the expense of interesting discussion. I am willing to
>> examine the less certain aspects of my own position.
>>
>> 1. I've been quite open about being a mainstream Christian, therefore
>> belief in an omniscient designer is assumed. The only reason I mentioned
>> it here was to contrast solution space access, even at risk of stating
>> the obvious. Not sure what your concern with this is?
> 
> You are asserting ID as an alternative to evolution. You borrow
> from the ID movement that exists, riding on their shoulders.
> They have religiously denied that their claims about the designer
> are specific to their God.
> 
> They do this for well documented reasons.
> 
> It is foundationally dishonest to ride their coattails but retreat
> to claiming you want to refer to an omniscient designer when you
> are pressed and find it to be rhetorically convenient.
> 
> You assert that evolution cannot create the complexity observed in
> the biochemistry of living organisms. My undergraduate degree was
> in biochemistry, my further degrees and work expanded upon that
> such that I have a strong background in biochemistry, immunology,
> regulatory networks, biopolymer structure, and metabolic networks.
> And as a companion interest, I have studied evolution.
> 
> So when you make these claims, as sloppily as you do, I take
> some offense at the fact of how wrong they are. I also take offense
> when someone falsely claims that other countries pay for tariffs.
> 
> If you aren't talking about an abstract notion of a Designer, and
> are instead limiting yourself to a cartoon of an Omniscient,
> Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, then why go through the deceit of
> labeling them a designer. Be honest and just say "God did it."
> 
> The raison d'etat for saying "designer" instead of god is well
> documented. It was a scheme conspired to pretend it wasn't about
> god but was a neutral analysis that could compete with evolution
> because certain people were afraid that children who learned
> about evolution would not feel the need to believe in god.
> This in concert with attempts to bypass US Constitutional bans
> on pushing specific religious beliefs in public schools.
> 
> So you invoking a "designer" tars you with that legacy.
> You can try to avoid it, but when you retreat to a triple-
> omni god we're left to ask
> 
>   ---  why did you ever reference a designer?
> 
> 
>> 2. As I said above, you interpreted me to be saying "that evolution HAS
>> to explore ALL available search space." I clarified that my meaning was
>> not that, but rather the postulate "that evolution would NOT be able to
>> explore all available search space." Do you accept this?
> 
> Your claim was that evolution can't account for observed complexity
> because of its limitation, and to expand upon those limitations
> you point out that evolution can't explore the entire hypothetically
> possible genomic landscape. It was an odd thing to bring up because
> it's trite and irrelevant. Nothing about the observed biochemical
> complexity of life suggests it would have been necessary to have
> been able to source from the entirety of the genomic landscape.
> Thus your comments about exploring the entirety of the genomic
> landscape is a nonsensical smokescreen.
> 
> Apparently, you wanted to dump on evolution because it can't consider
> things your omniscient designer can. And now I can't help myself.
> 
> The evidence is against your omniscient designer drawing from an
> unconstrained realm of the full conceptually possible genomic
> landscape. If that was happening, why would we have the pairing of
> the twin nested hierarchies? An omniscient designer would not have
> such a constraint. They wouldn't have  that excuse for filling so
> many life forms with kludgy solutions hobbled together from preexisting
> structures and pathways.
> 
> 
>> 3. I can appreciate there is some frustration in relation to the "what,
>> why, where, and how" questions. I'm not actively avoiding them, and have
>> given some broad suggestions here and there.
>>
>> An example I've give before is this: it is entirely valid to seek to
>> show that human induced global warming is a real problem, regardless of
>> whether or not you have a solution.
> 
> That's not the same thing. That's about identifying a problem whether
> or not you have a solution. That isn't remotely like talking about some
> "designer" and religiously avoiding asking about when, where, and how.
> 
>> Similarly, it is entirely valid to
>> seek to show that naturalistic explanations of origins are inadequate,
>> regardless of whether or not you offer an alternative hypothesis. That
>> would in and of itself be of profound importance and value. Offering an
>> alternative hypothesis (naturalistic or supernatural) would be also be
>> of profound importance and value, but not necessary to validate the
>> former.
>>
>> Open to exploring this further.
> 
> And yet, you continue to wander away from your assertion that
> naturalistic explanations can't account for the complexity observed
> in living organism. Instead, you talk about how evolution can't
> test the entirety of sequence space. In other words, you revert to
> irrelevant asides. You talk about how an omniscient designer
> could use any genomic sequence --- except that hasn't been observed
> to have happened but rather the opposite.
> 
> Son, people can see you.
> 

I see you are fond of recycling that particular put-down.

And I see you've chosen to double down. My offer of civil and open 
discussion stands. Let me know if ever you're willing.