Re: West Virginia creationism

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:31:17 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:16:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:03:03 -0400, Ron Dean

[...]

    From then, each succeeding generation the
deleterious mutations multiplied. I think possibly the proofreading and
repair, which was an elegantly and highly sophisticated design set up
for the best results, but over the vast spans of time even the P&R
mechanisms, which initially were perfect, but with the passage of time
even the P&R became less perfect due to bad mutations that slipped
passed the P&R mechanisms, consequent the P&R systems were affected. The
results we see today.

>
Again, I wish you would dress my actual question - where does your
intelligent designer fit into that process?
>

It seems that after the task was completed it said "It is done".

>
Why do you think that happened?
>

Disappointment maybe. Man's inhumanity to man: wars, murders, thief,
rape etc etc. is a possibility.

>
Remember that man has only been around for a fraction of the time that
the rest of  life has been around.  What was there to be disappointed
in before humans were around?
>

Why would it be?

 Because you just said it would be.
 

If we were puppets on a string, perhaps
this would not have happens, IOW had we been denied free agency we might
still be in its good graces. I strongly suspect God turned it's back of
this planet and it's inhabitants, due to it's disappointment..

>
Do you think we *need* to have wars, murders, thievery, and rape to
achieve "free agency"?
>

I think you deliberately stated it have it exactly backwards

 How would you state it?
 

left things with the capacity and ability  to take care of itself.

>
And how did that turn out for him, given the pervasiveness of
extinction?
>

I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of
deleterious mutations each generation becomes  less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions  accounts for extinction of many species for example
in Siberia.

>
So it didn't turn out that well for him.  Why?
>

Because of free will. Had we been born robots with out a will or
thinking mind our lives totally controlled by unwavering instinct, would
this have been better? Is there another option?

 Yes, in fact there is.  Give people their freedom of choice but don't
be so extremist about it that you  allow people to hurt others -- it's
the foundation of the criminal justice system, in fact.
 

It
seems that the designer left the scene. Over time and the 2ND law
everything enters into downward tends, copying errors occur, things tend
to disintegrate and inevitably things move towards dissolution and
decay.

>
If you believe the Designer is God, perhaps you could fill us in on
what we should expect to see if that designer was responsible for
life's diversity. What should we be looking for to prove or disprove
your "hypothesis"?
>

Falsify the existence of a designer(God)? I've only recently come to
that conclusion.

>
How do you propose that we test for the existence of God?
>

Find an way to determine what we observe in nature as real design,
apparent design or illusion.And observation is the first principle of
the scientific method. It isn't science that determines whether design
in nature is real or apparent, but rather philosophical position. The
fact is, evolution is an alternative explanation.

 If the evidence suggested that a designer existed, you would need more
than that to test for the existence of God.
 

One on the strongest evidence for a God, as far as I'm
concerned, is the infusion of information in this planet I'm convinced
that no one absolutely _knows_ how information arose in via natural
processes in a blind, purposeless, random and mindless universe.

>
Would you agree that the sequence 1101100101 is information?  If so,
can you explain why you think it couldn't occur naturally?
>

It is but you don't  find this in nature, but rather on a computer, cell
phones etc. Whether or not there is a translation of such information it
serves of function.

 What if a group of electrons sequentially went through a magnetic
field and were therefore deflected upwards or downwards.  Then say
that "up deflection" is 0 and "down deflection" is 1.  Then the
behavior of the electrons would be defined by 1101100101 as  "down,
down, up, down, down, up, up, down, up, down" -- without the
interference of any humans.
 

But if
you deny the existence of God, then you have no other options: all
that's left for you are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
because but no knows how natural processes originated information.
Furthermore high levels of complex information comes from a mind.

>
So invoking a Designer changes your idea from being just an educated
guess?  You're trying to denigrate non-Designer ideas as being just
hypotheses and theories, but there's nothing wrong with those things,
and in fact, invoking God does not reach the level of being even a
hypothesis itself.
>

The significant point in all this _is_ the undeniable fact that life
exist, where it should not, except  there's no know way to demonstrate
something or some0ne brought it about. But the fact that life exist is
evidence that life was purposefully and intentionally brought about
since nature or natural processes could have derived life from dead
matter. There are two requirements before the origin of the first cell
could happen: advanced information

 That's just a buzz-word you're using to pretend that you're doing
something fundamental.  In reality information science has no deep
connections with the origin of life's complexity.
 

and high complexity. It's an all or
nothing scenario. There is no know source of highly complicated
information apart from mind. This is one of the reason a new movement by
scientist who find that ne0-Darwinism faulty.

 They have problems with neo-Darwinism, not evolution itself.
 

These are PhD with the same education levels and credentials as the
mainstream scientist who have no doubts. I agree these intellectuals are
a small minority, however I suspect there are even more scientist

 You mean you wish this were true.
 

who
are doubters, but who choose to remain silent, their doubts are never
expressed.
This article goes very gingerly and with extreme caution into the issue
entitled, "Why a Third Way of Evolution is Required"'

>

  https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

>

I mentioned a couple others but the internet is ripe with other articles:

>

https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/stephen-l-talbott/evolution-a-third-way

>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36382546/
>

I understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but
honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses.

 No, there's nothing to explain away.  There will always be crackpots
amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science.

 >
You call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educated with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias.
  It's one

of the strengths of science that these people are allowed to co-exist
with the rest.
 

There is a longer list of intellectuals and scientist who doubt Darwinism.

>

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

 What do you think of this:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism
 

  It's not specific enough to be anything other than

another way of saying "I don't know."
>

There's very little we can know, death and taxes, so it goes.
>

I had some beautiful pine trees in my
acreage. But a patch died, collapsed and are in a process of decay. This
is typical. The same will
happen to our bodies.

>

>

>