Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Suboptimal design (dreams vs evidence)

Expand Messages
  • Kamran
       ________________________________ From: D R Lindberg To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:01 PM
    Message 1 of 121 , Jan 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


      From: D R Lindberg <dr.lindberg@...>
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:01 PM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Suboptimal design (dreams vs evidence)

      > >
      > DRL: You seem to have a strange idea of what evidence is and what it
      > show.
      > Kamran: Yes it appears strange to you that I expect that the evidence
      should match the scope of the claim!!!!! For instance if someone
      accuses another person of murder or anything, they can't invoke a dream
      as evidence.

      DRL: Reasoning by totally false analogy noted.

      No one is suggesting invoking a dream as evidence.

      Kamran: But I was not using any analogy.  An animation that assumes a sophisticated software development takes place and all the external hardware designs are also put in place to allow one system to be augmented by evolutionary additions through events driven without any intelligence and foresight regarding the process or end product is more than just a dream. This is hallucination; I was just trying to be more considerate by referring to them as dreams; day dream, if you like.  The term Dream is often used when people come up with ideas that have absolutely no point of interface or correlation with reality.  So the use of the term dream by me was not meant to be an analogy at all.

      > ********************************
      > DRL: If you asked someone for evidence of World War II, he could send
      you complete copies of the Japanese plans for attacking Pearl Harbor, and
      it seems that you would still reject it all, claiming that it wasn't real evidence of World War II because it doesn't explain the Battle of El Alamein, or Hitler's invasion of Russia, or the U-boats in the St. Lawrence River, or the Battle of the River Plate, or the roles played
      by Mussolini, De Gaulle, Quisling, Franco, the Duke of Windsor and David Ben Gurion, or the episode described in the book "The Man Who Never Was" or the spy work of Richard Sorge, or that of the man called Lucy, or
      my father's or grandfather's roles, or how the bridge on the River Kwai
      was really built.
      > Kamran: Reasoning by totally false analogy noted. Now if you could
      only explain how breading dogs from volves can explain the origination
      of body plans or the origination of oirganisms, etc. Is there any
      other amazing thing you want me to accept based on your evolutionary

      DRL: There is no false analogy here. We were discussing evidence from
      Dawkins's book. No one claimed it alone was enough to "explain the
      origination of body plans or the origination of oirganisms, etc."

      Kamran: Khomeini once said: "clergy (ie. mullahs) are to Islam, what doctors are to medicine."  Well if one accepts this analogy, the conclusion will also follow.  So analogy is never a sufficient basis or framework for reasoning.

      But you are also abusing your own analogy. If I knew absolutely nothing about the WWII event, and you showed me evidence of war in one part of the world and told me that was evidence for a world war, I would righly ask you how was the rest of the world at war. In other words, I would challenge that your evidence of a war in one part of the world would qualify as the evidence for a worldwide war.  I am asking you the same for evolution.  Considering the structure of the machine of life, you and every other evolutionists I have seen or read, has not provided a starting evidence on how this machine actually goes from point A to point B in sifting one species to another or in creating a limb that was not there at all.  You, sometimes, point to adaptive features of the machine (which are quite obvious to an engineer who studies the software and hardware features of the machine) and make conclusions that are infinitely out of form and substance with the
      evidence presented.


      DRL: First of all, you do not seem to realize that science is an ongoing work
      in progress that does not claim to have all the answers. It's like a
      giant crossword puzzle for which we have so far found only a few pieces,
      but these pieces seem to fit a pattern. It's like we had one piece
      showing a root, another piece showing part of a trunk covered with bark,
      another part showing a branch, and some parts showing leaves. Is it
      unreasonable to hypothesize that when we find them all, they will show a
      tree, or trees? It is of course possible that when we find more parts,
      we will find that this interpretation is incorrect, but as we find more
      and more parts that do fit, this possibility appears more and more

      Kamran: Another false analogy that dictates the intended conclusion.  Who says the parts shown in the puzzle of life are tantamount to seeing the root or trunk of a tree???  So you are taking "evolution" as granted as you know the shape of a tree?!!  Is this the definition of science being an ongoing work in progress??  The pieces of the puzzle that have been uncovered about the machine of life point to nothing remotely close to the evolutionary conclusion.  If anything they point to Creative Causation (or, for some: Intelligent Design).


      DRL: For information on the origin of body plans, may I suggest you look at
      Neil Shuban's "Your Inner Fish" or one of the books by Sean Carroll.

      Or you could just watch this documentary.which summarizes a lot of

      Kamran:  Thanks but something tells me that you have noting to report yourself from this link, so please spare me.  Also you should not assume that I am challenging evolution without having done my homework on reading such evolutionary stories.

      > **************************************
      > DRL: When dealing with an enormous subject, one can only deal with one
      > of it at a time. Each of the topics you mention would require a
      > book or two to briefly summarize the evidence involved, so what do you
      > expect from one short posting?
      > Kamran: I expect the short posting to have a token of relevance to the
      transformations that are credited to the evolutionary story?
      Evolutionary story is about something coming from nothing.

      It is not.

      First of all, may I suggest that you find out what the theory of
      evolution DOES say, rather than just repeating tripe from anti-evolution
      propaganda squads?

      Kamran: You would be misleading yourself if you assumed that I am challenging evolution without having done my homework on reading what the theory of Evolution does say.  Meantime if you think I am missing what ToE says, please enlighten me and we can restart from the top.


      >K: Even if I let your naturalistic inclinations off the hook regarding
      naturalistic abiogenesis (ie life rising out of dead matter), a bacteria
      is nothing compared to an organism. Some organisms and life forms are
      nothing compared to others in terms of scope of variations. If you are
      making evolutionary claims that some things come from nothing, your
      posting, short or long, must contain material that persuades the readers
      mind that some thing can come from nothing. You want dreams to be
      admitted and pass as evidnece and this is not going to happen here.

      DRL: I am not claiming that some things came from nothing (and I don't think
      anyone else is), so this is a red herring.

      Kamran: You are indeed, without knowing it.  Repeat your understanding of ToE in one statement again and you'll see that accoridng to this theory something should come from nothing.  For instance a eukaryotic cell should come from bacteria where there is no starting point in a bacteria to turn it into a eukaryotic cell, etc, etc.


      DRL: Secondly, science IS an attempt to find naturalistic explanations for
      phenomena. So far, it seems to be working fairly well.

      Kamran: Can't agree with that definition, as an intellectual matter can not be limited to physical nature or we can't conclude that physical nature is all there is to know of.  And, BTW, that definition for science has worked miserably so far by blocking intellectual development of mankind in so many ways.  It has also relegated the Creator to the bounds of religion only, thus creating deep conflicts, where as a Creator identified through the sicnetific lense will not result in multiple religions that go into holy wars with each other.

      > ****************************************
      > DRL: But if it makes you feel superior to attack everything, feel
      > Kamran: I don't attack anything.

      DRL: It sure looks, sounds and smells like an attack.

      Kamran: Look, this exchange inevitably takes on some heat.   I am not on the attack.  Although I must say that evolutionary position is so weak that all positions against it would easily be construed as an attack because nothing is really left for evolution.


      >K: If you think evolution happens, please provide a piece of good argument
      or evidence and I'll gladly review and analyze it.

      DRL: If you have time, try the documentary I mentioned above. I would like to
      hear your opinion on why the findings suggested there are wrong.

      Kamran: I may just do that, but I am not holding my breath for you to change your view on evolution because you have already ignored a lot of arguments and evidence against it.

      > ******************************
      > Society is composed of two great classes: those who have more dinners
      > than appetite, and those who have more appetite than dinners. -
      > Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas de Chamfort, writer (1741-1794)
      > Good one....
      Thank you!


      "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans." -- Woody

      Kamran: This one is really funny, and in so many ways true. 


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and
      Message 121 of 121 , Feb 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)

        > David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
        > LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
        > ----------------------------
        > "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
        > held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
        > characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
        > orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
        > and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
        > scientific truth."'
        > (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
        > ======================
        > Laurie.
        > "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
        > incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
        > will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)

        David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.

        LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;


        "Once we see, however, that the probability of life
        originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
        the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
        that the favourable properties of physics on which life
        depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .

        "It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
        measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
        higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
        idealized limit of God."

        (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
        Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
        Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
        Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
        J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)



        "We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)


        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.