Re: West Virginia creationism

Ron Dean wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

 

erik simpson wrote:

On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

Bob Casanova wrote:
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
>
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.

>
Ron Okimoto

>

You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion".  It's been
a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
that's been learned about it.  "Intelligent design" has presented no
such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding
Ediacaran period.  In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
regarding any subsequent period.  "It looks designed, so it must be"
isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.  Ignorance itself isn't
bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come
from the mind.  It goes IN to the mind.
>

Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?

>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

  Once again, you rely on baseless claims.  You offer zero basis to
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past. >

Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication, research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known exceptions.

And you see anywhere in a cell books, research, experience etc? I
only see some rather complex chemical reactions. Or do you mean you have access to the books, observations communications
research etc that the designer of cells used Now that would be interesting, and the first step to a proper ID theory, so I'd be agog to hear
you talk more about them!

 >
  You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,

you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
evidence of design.

 >
Life itself is evidence of design. Why is there life? What impelled dead matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily gaps.

 And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
processes.  That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
negative evidence against unguided evolution.
 Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
rabbits.  Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
once again you have no idea what you're talking about.  Pick your
poison.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>