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

Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up (tree of injustice)

Expand Messages
  • Truman
    ... I still don t see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.   ... I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am saying that if I
    Message 1 of 23 , Jul 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Kamran <forkamran@...> wrote:
      >
      ________________________________
      > From: Truman <seekeththee@...>
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:40 AM
      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up (tree of injustice)
      >
      > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the  Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
      > >
      > >
      > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does not exist?
      > >
      > > 
      > >
      > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that passes the laughing test). 
      >
      > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
      >  
      >  
      > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the
      > hypothesis of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you
      > will laugh at the absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim
      > purportedly supported by it. 

      I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.
       
      > *****************************
      >  
      > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a
      > piece of evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me
      > is going to be able to.
      >  
      >  
      >  
      > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have
      > offered any evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any
      > evidence to offer and defend here, you sure have made some quite
      > strong statements about the scientific merits of the ToE!!  Isn't
      > there some backwoods hillbilly principle that says: "thou shall not
      > speak in vain??"

      I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am saying that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have already presented.

      To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.

      I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design Theory" is a shame though.
       
      > *********************************
      >
      > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance
      > of information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming
      > around on a pressurized open-air space ship energized by an
      > adjacent perfectly sized and distanced star and also motion- and
      > weather-controlled by an odd oversized orbiting moon,
      > and ......,  can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of energy
      > and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
      > influence of natural forces. 
      >
      >
      > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly like the movie.
      >  
      >  
      >  
      > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider
      > that under the universal physical laws and conditions, the
      > emergence of a life system, in the form of cockroaches or other,
      > anywhere in the universe would be as constrained and prohibited as
      > here on earth.  So no alien life outside this earth (unless placed
      > and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is another universal
      > axiom that must replace the current childish and Hollywood-inspired
      > fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone intelligent life.

      I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".

      They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common design, but not common ancestry.

       
      > ****************************
      >  
      >
      > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these
      > rather critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion
      > on logical arguments and historic and present empirical
      > manifestations of Creator's character and his methodologies in
      > taking his creations forward.
      >
      >
      > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
      >
      >
      >  
      > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails
      > but haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie.
      > the appearance of the system of life and its customized environment
      > within a violent inhospitable
      > space-time envelop. 

      Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.


      > For at least the several past decades, you
      > must blame this ignorance on the whims of the political power
      > matrix that is constantly weaving its thread around your life, and
      > forming the real malicious matrix you should be worried about. 
      > Your problems are closer to home.

      Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no inferential trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US that is censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue them?

      That is so preposterous, you must be right!

      Truman
    • Kamran
      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:23 AM To:
      Message 2 of 23 , Jul 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Truman
        Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:23 AM
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
        (tree of injustice)





        > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
        Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
        > >
        > >
        > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
        inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
        not exist?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it would
        be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution is a
        sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that passes
        the laughing test).
        >
        > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
        >
        >
        > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the hypothesis of
        biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
        absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by it.






        T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.





        Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of evolution,
        rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The reason you
        are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any evidence;
        clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either. According to what
        you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some scientists whom
        you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they are not
        the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit it.



        > *****************************
        >
        > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece of
        evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
        able to.
        >
        >
        > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered any
        evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to offer and
        defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
        scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
        principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"




        T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am saying
        that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have
        already presented.





        K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any evidence
        or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
        win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.



        **************************************




        T: To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test
        is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.





        Kamran: Yes I am certain that you can't do it because the features of the
        machine of life are so well known by now that any evolutionary idea is
        condemned to be a non-starter





        ******************************




        T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
        Theory" is a shame though.





        Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At least
        you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.



        > *********************************
        >
        > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
        information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
        pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized and
        distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
        orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
        energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
        influence of natural forces.
        >
        >
        > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
        cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
        universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
        like the movie.
        >
        >
        > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
        under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
        system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe would
        be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life outside
        this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is
        another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
        Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
        intelligent life.




        T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for
        them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".

        They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
        design, but not common ancestry.



        Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even the
        Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
        unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
        structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
        development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
        overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like our
        cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
        the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
        life out there.


        > ****************************
        >
        > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
        critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
        arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
        character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
        >
        >
        > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical
        manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
        secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
        ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
        >
        >
        > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
        haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of the
        system of life and its customized environment within a violent inhospitable
        space-time envelop.




        T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be
        inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.





        Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
        obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not
        saying the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven
        evolution from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.




        ************************************





        >K: For at least the several past decades, you must blame this ignorance on
        the whims of the political power matrix that is constantly weaving its
        thread around your life, and forming the real malicious matrix you should be
        worried about. Your problems are closer to home.

        Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no inferential
        trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US that is
        censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue them?

        That is so preposterous, you must be right!

        Truman





        Kamran: You totally, or deliberately, missed my point. Earlier you had said
        that: "I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly like
        the movie," and I just reminded you that that form of matrix was actually
        forming around your life by a real-world political and economic system gone
        badly wrong. The fact that the foundation of this system does not find it
        in its interest to help develop your mind and recognition about the higher
        creator running a much bigger show is self explanatory. It's a fact that
        not a single piece of evidence can be presented or defended in this debate
        about evolution, and lots and lots is being said to argue that it is a
        non-starter but I have never seen a major media outlet in the US to host a
        balanced debate on the subject. I have never seen any of the major media
        programs, be it news networks or documentary channels, dedicate part of the
        programs they display to sell the idea of evolution, to the arguments
        presented against it. You may want to mock the interpretation of this
        reality by abusing the term conspiracy, but the fact is that the term
        conspiracy exists because conspiracies happens, and often the conspirators
        consider that they are doing something for the good of everyone. If you
        really are interested in knowing how a conspiracy works or is at work,
        please go and investigate the subject of US senate or congressional votes in
        recent decades where one side of the vote count has been zero, and I am not
        talking about votes concerning sympathy with disaster victims, you can skip
        those.




        <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3471096/grpspId=1707281911/msgId
        =32367/stime=1374109449>





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Truman
        ... I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for anything when you are the one that said: It makes me laugh that they still haven t learned
        Message 3 of 23 , Jul 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kamran" <forkamran@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          > Behalf Of Truman
          > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:23 AM
          > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
          > (tree of injustice)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
          > Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
          > inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
          > not exist?
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it would
          > be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution is a
          > sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that passes
          > the laughing test).
          > >
          > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
          > >
          > >
          > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the hypothesis of
          > biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
          > absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by it.
          >
          >
          > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.
          >
          > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of evolution,
          > rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The reason you
          > are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any evidence;
          > clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either. According to what
          > you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some scientists whom
          > you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they are not
          > the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit it.
          >

          I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for anything when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice."

          How do you explain how the Creator runs things by having me present evidence for evolution?



          > > *****************************
          > >
          > > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece of
          > evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
          > able to.
          > >
          > >
          > > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered any
          > evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to offer and
          > defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
          > scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
          > principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am saying
          > that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have
          > already presented.
          >
          > K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any evidence
          > or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
          > win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.
          >

          I have important news for you too Kamran.

          Evolution theory is taught at the Universities as a course all alone. I have an evolution textbook. It is perfectly legal to teach evolution in the high school science classroom.

          On the other hand, creationism (i.e. explanations on how the creator runs things) is not taught in any science courses at the University level that I am aware of. It is not legal to teach such a course in a high school science course.

          You seem to live in a dream world where you laugh a lot.


          > **************************************
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > T: To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test
          > is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.
          >
          >
          > Kamran: Yes I am certain that you can't do it because the features of the
          > machine of life are so well known by now that any evolutionary idea is
          > condemned to be a non-starter

          Yes, it shows in the science journals and biology departments at the Universities.


          >
          >
          > ******************************
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
          > Theory" is a shame though.
          >
          >
          > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At least
          > you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
          >

          Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.

          I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.



          > > *********************************
          > >
          > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
          > information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
          > pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized and
          > distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
          > orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
          > energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
          > influence of natural forces.
          > >
          > >
          > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
          > cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
          > universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
          > like the movie.
          > >
          > >
          > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
          > under the universal physical laws and conditions,
          the emergence of a life
          > system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe would
          > be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth.
          So no alien life outside
          > this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is
          > another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
          > Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
          > intelligent life.


          >
          > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for
          > them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
          >
          > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
          > design, but not common ancestry.
          >
          >
          >
          > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even the
          > Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
          > unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
          > structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
          > development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
          > overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like our
          > cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
          > the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
          > life out there.

          You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am not saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.

          I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but cockroach qualities in appearance.

          I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator are?


          > > ****************************
          > >
          > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
          > critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
          > arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
          > character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
          > >
          > >
          > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical
          > manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
          > secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
          > ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
          > >
          > >
          > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
          > haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of the
          > system of life and its customized environment within a violent inhospitable
          > space-time envelop.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be
          > inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
          > obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not
          > saying the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven
          > evolution from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.

          That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked up on the inferential trails.

          On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is not looking for them because he says there are none.


          > ************************************
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >K: For at least the several past decades, you must blame this ignorance on
          > the whims of the political power matrix that is constantly weaving its
          > thread around your life, and forming the real malicious matrix you should be
          > worried about. Your problems are closer to home.
          >
          > Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no inferential
          > trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US that is
          > censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue them?
          >
          > That is so preposterous, you must be right!
          >
          > Truman
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Kamran: You totally, or deliberately, missed my point. Earlier you had said
          > that: "I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly like
          > the movie," and I just reminded you that that form of matrix was actually
          > forming around your life by a real-world political and economic system gone
          > badly wrong. The fact that the foundation of this system does not find it
          > in its interest to help develop your mind and recognition about the higher
          > creator running a much bigger show is self explanatory. It's a fact that
          > not a single piece of evidence can be presented or defended in this debate
          > about evolution, and lots and lots is being said to argue that it is a
          > non-starter but I have never seen a major media outlet in the US to host a
          > balanced debate on the subject. I have never seen any of the major media
          > programs, be it news networks or documentary channels, dedicate part of the
          > programs they display to sell the idea of evolution, to the arguments
          > presented against it. You may want to mock the interpretation of this
          > reality by abusing the term conspiracy, but the fact is that the term
          > conspiracy exists because conspiracies happens, and often the conspirators
          > consider that they are doing something for the good of everyone. If you
          > really are interested in knowing how a conspiracy works or is at work,
          > please go and investigate the subject of US senate or congressional votes in
          > recent decades where one side of the vote count has been zero, and I am not
          > talking about votes concerning sympathy with disaster victims, you can skip
          > those.
          >

          No Kamran, I get your point.

          My comment was in regard to something I read in the news years ago. There was concern in some community about these Satanic practices where they may have been human sacrifices and such. The police investigated and said that they could find no evidence to support the suspicions of the preacher that initiated the investigation.

          His response was that the fact they could find no evidence, was proof that it happened.

          I cannot deny that conspiracies occur like you said. I am pretty sure that in regard to evolution and your accusations, there is no conspiracy.

          Truman
        • Kamran
          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:28 AM To:
          Message 4 of 23 , Aug 4, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of Truman
            Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:28 AM
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
            (tree of injustice)




            > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
            Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.



            > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
            inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
            not exist?

            > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it
            would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution
            is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that
            passes the laughing test).

            > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.

            > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the hypothesis
            of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
            absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by it.

            > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.

            > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of
            evolution, rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The
            reason you are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any
            evidence; clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either. According
            to what you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some scientists
            whom you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they are
            not the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit
            it.
            >

            T: I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for anything
            when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't
            learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of
            injustice."




            Kamran: Some of the people in this debate are here to demonstrate that
            evolution is the best explanation for the diversity, of not origination, of
            life. If I am not mistaken, you are stand on that side as well. On this
            basis you should provide evidence to justify your position. Telling us that
            some scientists stand behind the evolutionary explanation does not on its
            own offer any evidence for evolution.





            ****************************





            T: How do you explain how the Creator runs things by having me present
            evidence for evolution?





            Kamran: I don't know how you managed to take two different segments of this
            discussion and link them together!! I never said that my explanation on
            how the Creator runs things is contingent on you offering an evidence for
            evolution. Meantime if you do manage to present evidence for evolution, in
            addition to you capturing the trophy of being the first one to do so, you
            will have, in a way, partly explained how the creator runs things. However
            if you come to the realization that you can't offer a single piece of viable
            evidence for evolution, then it would be expected of you to stop presenting
            yourself as a proponent of evolution, and genuinely seek other explanations
            on how the Creator runs things.





            > > *****************************
            > >
            > > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece of
            evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
            able to.





            > > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered
            any evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to offer
            and defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
            scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
            principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"




            > T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am
            saying that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have
            already presented.




            > K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any evidence
            or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
            win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.
            >

            T: I have important news for you too Kamran. Evolution theory is taught at
            the Universities as a course all alone. I have an evolution textbook. It is
            perfectly legal to teach evolution in the high school science classroom.





            Kamran: OK so it would be easy for you to look into that evolution text book
            of yours, and give a distilled outline of what sort of evidence the book
            offers for evolution. If I can't offer any good argument to reject that
            evidence, then I'll stop saying that evolution is, for sure, a non-starter
            idea. Telling me that there are books written on evolution does not do the
            trick here, because I have already laid out my reasons as to why I consider
            evolution to be a product of junk science not real science.




            T: On the other hand, creationism (i.e. explanations on how the creator runs
            things) is not taught in any science courses at the University level that I
            am aware of. It is not legal to teach such a course in a high school science
            course.

            You seem to live in a dream world where you laugh a lot.





            Kamran: Needless to say that laughing is generally good for you, and, to
            their credit, the claims made by evolutionists do give good grounds for big
            laughs. Creative Causation is not taught in any science course because it
            is a very new science. To be honest, Creationism in general also has some
            purely religious constituents that need to be gradually weeded out before
            the science-oriented or science-based portion of Creationism makes its way
            through to science classes. Since science-based Creationism will
            drastically change people's worldviews about how things got here and where
            things will most likely go from here, you can imagine that many who hold
            controlling positions in the political and economic power pyramid in the
            world (depending on where they stand in the pyramid) will show tough
            resistance against it because nearly every facet of world affairs will be
            restructured once the genuine scientific recognition of Creative Causation
            becomes universal. Countries will no longer exist. Human societies will
            merge. Global economic and trade priorities and programs will change.
            Reasons for wars will cease. Markets for weapons will vanish. Winning by
            some will not require losing by others ... in a nutshell, there is much more
            at stake here than just an impartial judgment on which way the science
            points, ie. evolution (be it naturalistic or divinely driven) vs. Creative
            Causation (through active, real-time, judicious and direct implementation).



            > **************************************

            > T: To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test
            is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.
            >
            > Kamran: Yes I am certain that you can't do it because the features of the
            machine of life are so well known by now that any evolutionary idea is
            condemned to be a non-starter

            T: Yes, it shows in the science journals and biology departments at the
            Universities.





            Kamran: Great, so I don't have to tell you where to look for it.





            > ******************************

            > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
            Theory" is a shame though.

            >
            > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At least
            you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
            >

            T: Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of
            intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the
            passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that
            their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.

            I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.





            Kamran: You are still not giving even one good reason (in the form of a
            viable evidence) as to why you don't think ToE is a sham (effectively, that
            is). Obviously Creative Causation and Intelligent Design may have some
            variances in the composition of arguments or the scope of conclusions; this
            is not a surprise. I don't speak for DI here. As far as ToE is concerned,
            I don't see that there is anything to be taught about it; looking at life
            from its information-based quantum-mechanical foundations, ToE is totally
            devoid of supporting facts or even plausible arguments. So for starters, ToE
            should be eliminated from all formal schooling. In my view the substitute
            is Creative Causation. On the methodology and content of teaching the
            Creative Causation, and within the north American context, first a lot of
            seminars will have to be held for school boards everywhere so that the
            members in these boards fully grasp the rationale for a shift and then a lot
            of resources will have to be allocated to develop curricula and teaching
            methodologies for various school levels. But then again, we are a long way
            off from getting passed the political barriers standing on the way of this
            essential academic shift.



            > > *********************************
            >
            > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
            information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
            pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized and
            distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
            orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
            energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
            influence of natural forces.


            > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
            cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
            universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
            like the movie.


            > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
            under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
            system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe would
            be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life outside
            this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is
            another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
            Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
            intelligent life.


            > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for
            them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
            >
            > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
            design, but not common ancestry.


            > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even
            the Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
            unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
            structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
            development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
            overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like our
            cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
            the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
            life out there.

            T: You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am not
            saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.





            Kamran: Yes the creator has limitations that are imposed by his own rational
            intentions. For instance if he had decided for humans to be 10 meters tall,
            he would have had to reengineer the whole universe and could not have
            reached his current objective with Human creation if he had placed ten-meter
            tall humans on the existing earth-solar-universe platform. The entire
            mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have to be changed
            and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have balanced a ten-meter
            man creation equation in such a way that would allow him to achieve the
            objective he has for the current creation process.



            **********************************


            T: I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks
            like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to
            produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but
            cockroach qualities in appearance.

            I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator
            are?





            Kamran: Basically through an effort of rational thinking. Such an effort
            would result in seeing that the outputs of a human body system cannot at the
            same time be obtained from a cockroach body system. The Creator cannot
            operate outside the rationality that links his methods to his purpose or
            objectives. For instance he cannot have a workable number system where
            number 5 also fulfills the role of number 7.



            ****************************
            > >
            > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
            critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
            arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
            character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
            > >
            > >
            > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical
            manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
            secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
            ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
            > >
            > >
            > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
            haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of the
            system of life and its customized environment within a violent inhospitable
            space-time envelop.
            >

            >
            > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be
            inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
            >

            >
            > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
            obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not saying
            the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven evolution
            from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.

            T: That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked
            up on the inferential trails.

            On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is not
            looking for them because he says there are none.





            Kamran: Good thing that you are looking for them, and you must have already
            had a good reason to keep looking. I am sure you will find them because
            they are within and all around you.



            > ************************************
            >
            > >K: For at least the several past decades, you must blame this ignorance
            on the whims of the political power matrix that is constantly weaving its
            thread around your life, and forming the real malicious matrix you should be
            worried about. Your problems are closer to home.
            >
            > T: Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no
            inferential trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US
            that is censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue
            them?
            >
            > That is so preposterous, you must be right!
            >
            >
            > Kamran: You totally, or deliberately, missed my point. Earlier you had
            said that: "I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
            like the movie," and I just reminded you that that form of matrix was
            actually forming around your life by a real-world political and economic
            system gone badly wrong. The fact that the foundation of this system does
            not find it in its interest to help develop your mind and recognition about
            the higher creator running a much bigger show is self explanatory. It's a
            fact that not a single piece of evidence can be presented or defended in
            this debate about evolution, and lots and lots is being said to argue that
            it is a non-starter but I have never seen a major media outlet in the US to
            host a balanced debate on the subject. I have never seen any of the major
            media programs, be it news networks or documentary channels, dedicate part
            of the programs they display to sell the idea of evolution, to the arguments
            presented against it. You may want to mock the interpretation of this
            reality by abusing the term conspiracy, but the fact is that the term
            conspiracy exists because conspiracies happens, and often the conspirators
            consider that they are doing something for the good of everyone. If you
            really are interested in knowing how a conspiracy works or is at work,
            please go and investigate the subject of US senate or congressional votes in
            recent decades where one side of the vote count has been zero, and I am not
            talking about votes concerning sympathy with disaster victims, you can skip
            those.
            >

            T: No Kamran, I get your point.

            My comment was in regard to something I read in the news years ago. There
            was concern in some community about these Satanic practices where they may
            have been human sacrifices and such. The police investigated and said that
            they could find no evidence to support the suspicions of the preacher that
            initiated the investigation.

            His response was that the fact they could find no evidence, was proof that
            it happened.

            I cannot deny that conspiracies occur like you said. I am pretty sure that
            in regard to evolution and your accusations, there is no conspiracy.

            Truman





            Kamran: A conspiracy can take shape from deep, often hidden, innermost
            intentions of people with a common objective, especially those who make
            effective decisions forming major actions and events. For instance the
            Israeli politicians and their powerful supporters in the US don't actually
            sit around a table in a dark room, and coordinate how to form and sequence
            their actions so that the hope of ever creating a sovereign and viable
            Palestinian state will be obliterated. Rather, all persons who play a role
            in how the actual policies and actions pan out, make their decisions in such
            a way that this outcome will become all but inevitable. And almost none of
            them (except the religious extremists who happen to be honest about this
            particular goal) will admit that they are making their decisions with the
            intention of dictating this outcome.



            So you see, conspiracies aren't always managed from a discussion among some
            people sitting around a table in a dark and closed room. When you read a
            piece of news and realize how the organization providing it is twisting and
            turning and spinning facts to create a particular perception by the reader,
            you can see an element of a form of conspiracy. When many people and
            organizations behave the same way toward that particular topic or event, you
            have a form of sympathetic, if not coordinated, conspiracy. The little
            elements of conspiracy here and there join to form a bigger national or
            global conspiracy. All the little conspirators know that they are
            effectively playing a role in a bigger conspiracy but they are not overtly
            linked to one another. The common thread in their conspiratorial game play
            is that they are commonly willing to uphold obvious lies and withhold
            important truths about a certain matter. This form of conspiracy has
            maintained a seat for evolution in scientific and public circles, and
            whatever schools and universities it is taught as science. I also don't
            deny that many contribute to the objective of the present-day evolution
            conspiracy out of ignorance; these could also be classified as the victims
            of the conspiracy.





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kamran
            Resent after some typos were removed. From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013
            Message 5 of 23 , Aug 4, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Resent after some typos were removed.



              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Truman
              Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:28 AM
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
              (tree of injustice)




              > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
              Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.

              > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
              inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
              not exist?

              > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it
              would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution
              is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that
              passes the laughing test).

              > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.

              > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the hypothesis
              of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
              absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by it.

              > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.

              > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of
              evolution, rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The
              reason you are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any
              evidence; clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either. According
              to what you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some scientists
              whom you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they are
              not the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit
              it.
              >

              T: I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for anything
              when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't
              learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of
              injustice."


              Kamran: Some of the people in this debate are here to demonstrate that
              evolution is the best explanation for the diversity, if not origination, of
              life. If I am not mistaken, you stand on that side as well. On this basis
              you should provide evidence to justify your position. Telling us that some
              scientists stand behind the evolutionary explanation does not on its own
              offer any evidence for evolution.





              ****************************





              T: How do you explain how the Creator runs things by having me present
              evidence for evolution?





              Kamran: I don't know how you managed to take two different segments of this
              discussion and link them together!! I never said that my explanation on
              how the Creator runs things is contingent on you offering an evidence for
              evolution. Meantime if you do manage to present evidence for evolution, in
              addition to you capturing the trophy of being the first one to do so, you
              will have, in a way, partly explained how the creator runs things. However
              if you come to the realization that you can't offer a single piece of viable
              evidence for evolution, then it would be expected of you to stop presenting
              yourself as a proponent of evolution, and genuinely seek other explanations
              on how the Creator runs things.





              > > *****************************
              > >
              > > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece of
              evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
              able to.



              > > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered
              any evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to offer
              and defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
              scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
              principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"


              > T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am
              saying that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have
              already presented.


              > K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any evidence
              or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
              win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.
              >

              T: I have important news for you too Kamran. Evolution theory is taught at
              the Universities as a course all alone. I have an evolution textbook. It is
              perfectly legal to teach evolution in the high school science classroom.





              Kamran: OK so it would be easy for you to look into that evolution text book
              of yours, and give a distilled outline of what sort of evidence the book
              offers for evolution. If I can't offer any good argument to reject that
              evidence, then I'll stop saying that evolution is, for sure, a non-starter
              idea. Telling me that there are books written on evolution does not do the
              trick here, because I have already laid out my reasons as to why I consider
              evolution to be a product of junk science not real science.




              T: On the other hand, creationism (i.e. explanations on how the creator runs
              things) is not taught in any science courses at the University level that I
              am aware of. It is not legal to teach such a course in a high school science
              course.

              You seem to live in a dream world where you laugh a lot.





              Kamran: Needless to say that laughing is generally good for you, and, to
              their credit, the claims made by evolutionists do give good grounds for big
              laughs. Creative Causation is not taught in any science course because it
              is a very new science. To be honest, Creationism in general also has some
              purely religious constituents that need to be gradually weeded out before
              the science-oriented or science-based portion of Creationism makes its way
              through to science classes. Since science-based Creationism will
              drastically change people's worldviews about how things got here and where
              things will most likely go from here, you can imagine that many who hold
              controlling positions in the political and economic power pyramid in the
              world (depending on where they stand in the pyramid) will show tough
              resistance against it because nearly every facet of world affairs will be
              restructured once the genuine scientific recognition of Creative Causation
              becomes universal. Countries will no longer exist. Human societies will
              merge. Global economic and trade priorities and programs will change.
              Reasons for wars will cease. Markets for weapons will vanish. Winning by
              some will not require losing by others ... in a nutshell, there is much more
              at stake here than just an impartial judgment on which way the science
              points, ie. evolution (be it naturalistic or divinely driven) vs. Creative
              Causation (through active, real-time, judicious and direct implementation).



              > **************************************

              > T: To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test
              is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.
              >
              > Kamran: Yes I am certain that you can't do it because the features of the
              machine of life are so well known by now that any evolutionary idea is
              condemned to be a non-starter

              T: Yes, it shows in the science journals and biology departments at the
              Universities.





              Kamran: Great, so I don't have to tell you where to look for it.



              > ******************************

              > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
              Theory" is a shame though.

              >
              > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At least
              you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
              >

              T: Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of
              intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the
              passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that
              their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.

              I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.





              Kamran: You are still not giving even one good reason (in the form of a
              viable evidence) as to why you don't think ToE is a sham (effectively, that
              is). Obviously Creative Causation and Intelligent Design may have some
              variances in the composition of arguments or the scope of conclusions; this
              is not a surprise. I don't speak for DI here. As far as ToE is concerned,
              I don't see that there is anything to be taught about it; looking at life
              from its information-based quantum-mechanical foundations, ToE is totally
              devoid of supporting facts or even plausible arguments. So for starters, ToE
              should be eliminated from all formal schooling. In my view the substitute
              is Creative Causation. On the methodology and content of teaching the
              Creative Causation, and within the north American context, first a lot of
              seminars will have to be held for school boards everywhere so that the
              members in these boards fully grasp the rationale for a shift and then a lot
              of resources will have to be allocated to develop curricula and teaching
              methodologies for various school levels. But then again, we are a long way
              off from getting passed the political barriers standing on the way of this
              essential academic shift.



              > > *********************************
              >
              > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
              information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
              pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized and
              distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
              orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
              energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
              influence of natural forces.


              > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
              cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
              universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
              like the movie.


              > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
              under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
              system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe would
              be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life outside
              this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is
              another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
              Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
              intelligent life.


              > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for
              them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
              >
              > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
              design, but not common ancestry.


              > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even
              the Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
              unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
              structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
              development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
              overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like our
              cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
              the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
              life out there.

              T: You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am not
              saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.





              Kamran: Yes the creator has limitations that are imposed by his own rational
              intentions. For instance if he had decided for humans to be 10 meters tall,
              he would have had to reengineer the whole universe and could not have
              reached his current objective with Human creation if he had placed ten-meter
              tall humans on the existing earth-solar-universe platform. The entire
              mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have to be changed
              and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have balanced a ten-meter
              man creation equation in such a way that would allow him to achieve the
              objective he has for the current creation process.



              **********************************


              T: I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks
              like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to
              produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but
              cockroach qualities in appearance.

              I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator
              are?





              Kamran: Basically through an effort of rational thinking. Such an effort
              would result in seeing that the outputs of a human body system cannot at the
              same time be obtained from a cockroach body system. The Creator cannot
              operate outside the rationality that links his methods to his purpose or
              objectives. For instance he cannot have a workable number system where
              number 5 also fulfills the role of number 7.



              ****************************
              > >
              > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
              critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
              arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
              character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
              > >
              > >
              > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical
              manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
              secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
              ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
              > >
              > >
              > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
              haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of the
              system of life and its customized environment within a violent inhospitable
              space-time envelop.
              >

              >
              > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be
              inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
              >

              >
              > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
              obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not saying
              the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven evolution
              from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.

              T: That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked
              up on the inferential trails.

              On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is not
              looking for them because he says there are none.





              Kamran: Good thing that you are looking for them, and you must have already
              had a good reason to keep looking. I am sure you will find them because
              they are within and all around you.



              > ************************************
              >
              > >K: For at least the several past decades, you must blame this ignorance
              on the whims of the political power matrix that is constantly weaving its
              thread around your life, and forming the real malicious matrix you should be
              worried about. Your problems are closer to home.
              >
              > T: Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no
              inferential trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US
              that is censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue
              them?
              >
              > That is so preposterous, you must be right!
              >
              >
              > Kamran: You totally, or deliberately, missed my point. Earlier you had
              said that: "I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
              like the movie," and I just reminded you that that form of matrix was
              actually forming around your life by a real-world political and economic
              system gone badly wrong. The fact that the foundation of this system does
              not find it in its interest to help develop your mind and recognition about
              the higher creator running a much bigger show is self explanatory. It's a
              fact that not a single piece of evidence can be presented or defended in
              this debate about evolution, and lots and lots is being said to argue that
              it is a non-starter but I have never seen a major media outlet in the US to
              host a balanced debate on the subject. I have never seen any of the major
              media programs, be it news networks or documentary channels, dedicate part
              of the programs they display to sell the idea of evolution, to the arguments
              presented against it. You may want to mock the interpretation of this
              reality by abusing the term conspiracy, but the fact is that the term
              conspiracy exists because conspiracies happens, and often the conspirators
              consider that they are doing something for the good of everyone. If you
              really are interested in knowing how a conspiracy works or is at work,
              please go and investigate the subject of US senate or congressional votes in
              recent decades where one side of the vote count has been zero, and I am not
              talking about votes concerning sympathy with disaster victims, you can skip
              those.
              >

              T: No Kamran, I get your point.

              My comment was in regard to something I read in the news years ago. There
              was concern in some community about these Satanic practices where they may
              have been human sacrifices and such. The police investigated and said that
              they could find no evidence to support the suspicions of the preacher that
              initiated the investigation.

              His response was that the fact they could find no evidence, was proof that
              it happened.

              I cannot deny that conspiracies occur like you said. I am pretty sure that
              in regard to evolution and your accusations, there is no conspiracy.

              Truman





              Kamran: A conspiracy can take shape from deep, often hidden, innermost
              intentions of people with a common objective, especially those who make
              effective decisions forming major actions and events. For instance the
              Israeli politicians and their powerful supporters in the US don't actually
              sit around a table in a dark room, and coordinate how to form and sequence
              their actions so that the hope of ever creating a sovereign and viable
              Palestinian state will be obliterated. Rather, all persons who play a role
              in how the actual policies and actions pan out, make their decisions in such
              a way that this outcome will become all but inevitable. And almost none of
              them (except the religious extremists who happen to be honest about this
              particular goal) will admit that they are making their decisions with the
              intention of dictating this outcome.



              So you see, conspiracies aren't always managed from a discussion among some
              people sitting around a table in a dark and closed room. When you read a
              piece of news and realize how the organization providing it is twisting and
              turning and spinning facts to create a particular perception by the reader,
              you can see an element of a form of conspiracy. When many people and
              organizations behave the same way toward that particular topic or event, you
              have a form of sympathetic, if not coordinated, conspiracy. The little
              elements of conspiracy here and there join to form a bigger national or
              global conspiracy. All the little conspirators know that they are
              effectively playing a role in a bigger conspiracy but they are not overtly
              linked to one another. The common thread in their conspiratorial game play
              is that they are commonly willing to uphold obvious lies and withhold
              important truths about a certain matter. This form of conspiracy has
              maintained a seat for evolution in scientific and public circles, and
              whatever schools and universities it is taught as science. I also don't
              deny that many contribute to the objective of the present-day evolution
              conspiracy out of ignorance; these could also be classified as the victims
              of the conspiracy.





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Truman
              ... I have already explained. I am convinced I will fail any attempt to demonstrate that evolution is the best explanation to you. Now then. How does the
              Message 6 of 23 , Aug 4, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kamran" <forkamran@...> wrote:

                > > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
                > Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
                >
                > > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
                > inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
                > not exist?
                >
                > > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it
                > would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of evolution
                > is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that
                > passes the laughing test).
                >
                > > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
                >
                > > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the hypothesis
                > of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
                > absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by it.
                >
                > > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.
                >
                > > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of
                > evolution, rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The
                > reason you are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any
                > evidence; clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either. According
                > to what you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some scientists
                > whom you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they are
                > not the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit
                > it.
                > >
                >
                > T: I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for anything
                > when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't
                > learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of
                > injustice."
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Some of the people in this debate are here to demonstrate that
                > evolution is the best explanation for the diversity, if not origination, of
                > life. If I am not mistaken, you stand on that side as well. On this basis
                > you should provide evidence to justify your position. Telling us that some
                > scientists stand behind the evolutionary explanation does not on its own
                > offer any evidence for evolution.

                I have already explained. I am convinced I will fail any attempt to demonstrate that evolution is the best explanation to you.

                Now then. How does the Creator run things?



                > ****************************
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > T: How do you explain how the Creator runs things by having me present
                > evidence for evolution?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: I don't know how you managed to take two different segments of this
                > discussion and link them together!! I never said that my explanation on
                > how the Creator runs things is contingent on you offering an evidence for
                > evolution. Meantime if you do manage to present evidence for evolution, in
                > addition to you capturing the trophy of being the first one to do so, you
                > will have, in a way, partly explained how the creator runs things. However
                > if you come to the realization that you can't offer a single piece of viable
                > evidence for evolution, then it would be expected of you to stop presenting
                > yourself as a proponent of evolution, and genuinely seek other explanations
                > on how the Creator runs things.

                I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have knowledge of how the Creator runs things.

                I am genuinely seeking explanations. If you do not explain how the Creator runs things, then I guess you want me to continue to be a proponent of evolution.




                > > > *****************************
                > > >
                > > > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece of
                > evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
                > able to.
                >
                >
                >
                > > > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered
                > any evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to offer
                > and defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
                > scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
                > principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"
                >
                >
                > > T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am
                > saying that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists have
                > already presented.
                >
                >
                > > K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any evidence
                > or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
                > win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.
                > >
                >
                > T: I have important news for you too Kamran. Evolution theory is taught at
                > the Universities as a course all alone. I have an evolution textbook. It is
                > perfectly legal to teach evolution in the high school science classroom.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: OK so it would be easy for you to look into that evolution text book
                > of yours, and give a distilled outline of what sort of evidence the book
                > offers for evolution. If I can't offer any good argument to reject that
                > evidence, then I'll stop saying that evolution is, for sure, a non-starter
                > idea. Telling me that there are books written on evolution does not do the
                > trick here, because I have already laid out my reasons as to why I consider
                > evolution to be a product of junk science not real science.

                I admit, there is not a single argument for evolution that I can come up with that will make you think it is anything other than a product of junk science.

                But that doesn't mean you can't share with me how the Creator runs things.



                > T: On the other hand, creationism (i.e. explanations on how the creator runs
                > things) is not taught in any science courses at the University level that I
                > am aware of. It is not legal to teach such a course in a high school science
                > course.
                >
                > You seem to live in a dream world where you laugh a lot.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Needless to say that laughing is generally good for you, and, to
                > their credit, the claims made by evolutionists do give good grounds for big
                > laughs. Creative Causation is not taught in any science course because it
                > is a very new science. To be honest, Creationism in general also has some
                > purely religious constituents that need to be gradually weeded out before
                > the science-oriented or science-based portion of Creationism makes its way
                > through to science classes.

                Are those "purely religious constituents" false?

                Also we already have "science based creationism".
                http://www.nwcreation.net/


                Since science-based Creationism will
                > drastically change people's worldviews about how things got here and where
                > things will most likely go from here, you can imagine that many who hold
                > controlling positions in the political and economic power pyramid in the
                > world (depending on where they stand in the pyramid) will show tough
                > resistance against it because nearly every facet of world affairs will be
                > restructured once the genuine scientific recognition of Creative Causation
                > becomes universal.


                Oh yea. I read The Wedge Document too. I think they may have to extend that 20 year goal though.


                Countries will no longer exist. Human societies will
                > merge. Global economic and trade priorities and programs will change.
                > Reasons for wars will cease. Markets for weapons will vanish. Winning by
                > some will not require losing by others ... in a nutshell, there is much more
                > at stake here than just an impartial judgment on which way the science
                > points, ie. evolution (be it naturalistic or divinely driven) vs. Creative
                > Causation (through active, real-time, judicious and direct implementation).
                >

                And where is "how the Creator runs things" in all of this?


                > > **************************************
                >
                > > T: To be the first person to offer evidence that passes your laughing test
                > is just too big of a challenge for me. I don't think I can do it.
                > >
                > > Kamran: Yes I am certain that you can't do it because the features of the
                > machine of life are so well known by now that any evolutionary idea is
                > condemned to be a non-starter
                >
                > T: Yes, it shows in the science journals and biology departments at the
                > Universities.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Great, so I don't have to tell you where to look for it.

                No, but I may have to tell you.


                > > ******************************
                >
                > > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
                > Theory" is a shame though.
                >
                > >
                > > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At least
                > you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
                > >
                >
                > T: Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of
                > intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the
                > passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that
                > their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.
                >
                > I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: You are still not giving even one good reason (in the form of a
                > viable evidence) as to why you don't think ToE is a sham (effectively, that
                > is).

                OK, here it is. Now pay attention:

                I have convinced myself that I cannot give a good reason to you (in the form of a viable evidence).


                Obviously Creative Causation and Intelligent Design may have some
                > variances in the composition of arguments or the scope of conclusions; this
                > is not a surprise. I don't speak for DI here. As far as ToE is concerned,
                > I don't see that there is anything to be taught about it; looking at life
                > from its information-based quantum-mechanical foundations, ToE is totally
                > devoid of supporting facts or even plausible arguments. So for starters, ToE
                > should be eliminated from all formal schooling. In my view the substitute
                > is Creative Causation. On the methodology and content of teaching the
                > Creative Causation, and within the north American context, first a lot of
                > seminars will have to be held for school boards everywhere so that the
                > members in these boards fully grasp the rationale for a shift and then a lot
                > of resources will have to be allocated to develop curricula and teaching
                > methodologies for various school levels. But then again, we are a long way
                > off from getting passed the political barriers standing on the way of this
                > essential academic shift.


                Yes, those obstacles were mentioned as part of Phase I in The Wedge Document.

                So once we get passed the barriers, will you then be able to explain how the Creator runs things?

                > > > *********************************
                > >
                > > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
                > information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
                > pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized and
                > distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
                > orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
                > energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
                > influence of natural forces.
                >
                >
                > > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
                > cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
                > universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
                > like the movie.
                >
                >
                > > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
                > under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
                > system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe would
                > be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life outside
                > this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act) is
                > another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
                > Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
                > intelligent life.
                >
                >
                > > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility for
                > them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
                > >
                > > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
                > design, but not common ancestry.
                >
                >
                > > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even
                > the Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
                > unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
                > structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
                > development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
                > overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like our
                > cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
                > the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
                > life out there.
                >
                > T: You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am not
                > saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Yes the creator has limitations that are imposed by his own rational
                > intentions. For instance if he had decided for humans to be 10 meters tall,
                > he would have had to reengineer the whole universe and could not have
                > reached his current objective with Human creation if he had placed ten-meter
                > tall humans on the existing earth-solar-universe platform.

                Well, if the Creator wanted humans to be 10 meters tall, he would have engineered the whole universe accordingly. Doesn't your Creator plan ahead?

                Anyway, I am not saying the cockroach aliens are 10 meters tall. The are somewhere between 5'7" and 6'0". The genes are not as variable for height as they are with humans.


                The entire
                > mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have to be changed
                > and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have balanced a ten-meter
                > man creation equation in such a way that would allow him to achieve the
                > objective he has for the current creation process.

                Well, if the Creator wanted 10 meter humans, he could have created a universe that would support them first couldn't He?



                > **********************************
                >
                >
                > T: I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks
                > like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to
                > produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but
                > cockroach qualities in appearance.
                >
                > I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator
                > are?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Basically through an effort of rational thinking. Such an effort
                > would result in seeing that the outputs of a human body system cannot at the
                > same time be obtained from a cockroach body system. The Creator cannot
                > operate outside the rationality that links his methods to his purpose or
                > objectives. For instance he cannot have a workable number system where
                > number 5 also fulfills the role of number 7.

                No, the cockroach alien would have features of cockroaches and humans because of common design, not common ancestry. The human part would have the endoskeleton and brain size. It would be warm blooded. But it would also have bony plate exoskeleton similar to turtles, but it would look like an insect exoskeleton. They would have an extra par of arms that would be the same as the upper arms, but do not have opposable thumbs. They would also have antenna to help with olfactory senses to judge depth and direction of odors. A closer examination of body parts would show they are not really cockroaches, but when you first look at them, you know they are not humans, and the best example to describe them would be human cockroach. However they were designed, they would have to be designed through an effort of rational thinking for that part of the world, in that part of the universe they came from.



                > ****************************
                > > >
                > > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
                > critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
                > arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
                > character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these empirical
                > manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
                > secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
                > ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
                > haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of the
                > system of life and its customized environment within a violent inhospitable
                > space-time envelop.
                > >
                >
                > >
                > > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should be
                > inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
                > >
                >
                > >
                > > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
                > obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not saying
                > the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven evolution
                > from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.
                >
                > T: That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked
                > up on the inferential trails.
                >
                > On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is not
                > looking for them because he says there are none.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: Good thing that you are looking for them, and you must have already
                > had a good reason to keep looking. I am sure you will find them because
                > they are within and all around you.

                Thank you for the encouragement. I figure you have a better chance finding them if you look than you would if you don't.

                When I find them I will let the group know.

                > > ************************************
                > >
                > > >K: For at least the several past decades, you must blame this ignorance
                > on the whims of the political power matrix that is constantly weaving its
                > thread around your life, and forming the real malicious matrix you should be
                > worried about. Your problems are closer to home.
                > >
                > > T: Well, that helps to clarify things. It is not that there are no
                > inferential trails, but that there is a political conspiracy here in the US
                > that is censoring the inferential trails from those that want to pursue
                > them?
                > >
                > > That is so preposterous, you must be right!
                > >
                > >
                > > Kamran: You totally, or deliberately, missed my point. Earlier you had
                > said that: "I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
                > like the movie," and I just reminded you that that form of matrix was
                > actually forming around your life by a real-world political and economic
                > system gone badly wrong. The fact that the foundation of this system does
                > not find it in its interest to help develop your mind and recognition about
                > the higher creator running a much bigger show is self explanatory. It's a
                > fact that not a single piece of evidence can be presented or defended in
                > this debate about evolution, and lots and lots is being said to argue that
                > it is a non-starter but I have never seen a major media outlet in the US to
                > host a balanced debate on the subject. I have never seen any of the major
                > media programs, be it news networks or documentary channels, dedicate part
                > of the programs they display to sell the idea of evolution, to the arguments
                > presented against it. You may want to mock the interpretation of this
                > reality by abusing the term conspiracy, but the fact is that the term
                > conspiracy exists because conspiracies happens, and often the conspirators
                > consider that they are doing something for the good of everyone. If you
                > really are interested in knowing how a conspiracy works or is at work,
                > please go and investigate the subject of US senate or congressional votes in
                > recent decades where one side of the vote count has been zero, and I am not
                > talking about votes concerning sympathy with disaster victims, you can skip
                > those.
                > >
                >
                > T: No Kamran, I get your point.
                >
                > My comment was in regard to something I read in the news years ago. There
                > was concern in some community about these Satanic practices where they may
                > have been human sacrifices and such. The police investigated and said that
                > they could find no evidence to support the suspicions of the preacher that
                > initiated the investigation.
                >
                > His response was that the fact they could find no evidence, was proof that
                > it happened.
                >
                > I cannot deny that conspiracies occur like you said. I am pretty sure that
                > in regard to evolution and your accusations, there is no conspiracy.
                >
                > Truman
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Kamran: A conspiracy can take shape from deep, often hidden, innermost
                > intentions of people with a common objective, especially those who make
                > effective decisions forming major actions and events. For instance the
                > Israeli politicians and their powerful supporters in the US don't actually
                > sit around a table in a dark room, and coordinate how to form and sequence
                > their actions so that the hope of ever creating a sovereign and viable
                > Palestinian state will be obliterated. Rather, all persons who play a role
                > in how the actual policies and actions pan out, make their decisions in such
                > a way that this outcome will become all but inevitable. And almost none of
                > them (except the religious extremists who happen to be honest about this
                > particular goal) will admit that they are making their decisions with the
                > intention of dictating this outcome.
                So you see, conspiracies aren't always managed from a discussion among some
                > people sitting around a table in a dark and closed room. When you read a
                > piece of news and realize how the organization providing it is twisting and
                > turning and spinning facts to create a particular perception by the reader,
                > you can see an element of a form of conspiracy. When many people and
                > organizations behave the same way toward that particular topic or event, you
                > have a form of sympathetic, if not coordinated, conspiracy. The little
                > elements of conspiracy here and there join to form a bigger national or
                > global conspiracy. All the little conspirators know that they are
                > effectively playing a role in a bigger conspiracy but they are not overtly
                > linked to one another. The common thread in their conspiratorial game play
                > is that they are commonly willing to uphold obvious lies and withhold
                > important truths about a certain matter. This form of conspiracy has
                > maintained a seat for evolution in scientific and public circles, and
                > whatever schools and universities it is taught as science.

                Wow, I thought you were talking about Discovery Institute and their strategy with intelligent design. Then in this last sentence I realize you were talking about the Darwinists conspiracy.

                By bad.


                I also don't
                > deny that many contribute to the objective of the present-day evolution
                > conspiracy out of ignorance; these could also be classified as the victims
                > of the conspiracy.

                So would agree with Jim that this Ball State incident is part of some big conspiracy to silence opposition to Darwinian Propaganda?

                Truman
              • Charles Palm
                Truman (To Kamran): I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have knowledge of how the Creator runs things. I am genuinely seeking explanations.
                Message 7 of 23 , Aug 5, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Truman (To Kamran): I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not
                  have knowledge of how the Creator runs things. I am genuinely seeking
                  explanations. If you do not explain how the Creator runs things, then I
                  guess you want me to continue to be a proponent of evolution.

                  Charles P:
                  http://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com/file/view/Evolution.A.View.from.the.21st.Century.pdf
                  My suggestion is to forget about the old Theory of Evolution. It was only
                  (1) a creation myth without a creator and (2) it was anti-creationist. It
                  was always illogical that proving that the Creator does not run things is
                  somehow evidence that a creator does not exist and that materialism is all
                  we have. That is illogical nonsense.

                  Charles P: James A Shapiro has written a book that explains what is known
                  about natural genetic engineering. I believe that atheists, agnostics,
                  theistic evolutionists, etc. can easily understand what is known
                  scientifically about molecular science and Evo-Devo research. It focuses
                  on biology as an information science. It is not creationist. It is not
                  intelligent design. It is just explaining the mechanisms that are working
                  for DNA digital code information. After you have read the book, it will be
                  up to you to decide how that information fits into your own personal
                  philosophies to describe the origin and diversity of life.

                  Charles P: As long as you continue to wallow in the old Theory of
                  Evolution, you will never discover anything new that is verifiable evidence
                  for the descriptions for the origin and diversity of life. All you know
                  now is (1) wishful speculations based upon materialism and (2)
                  anti-supernaturalism.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Kamran
                  From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:30 AM To:
                  Message 8 of 23 , Aug 5, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf Of Truman
                    Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:30 AM
                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
                    (show me the conspiracy)




                    > > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
                    > Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
                    >
                    > > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
                    > inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
                    > not exist?
                    >
                    > > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it
                    > would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of
                    evolution
                    > is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that
                    > passes the laughing test).
                    >
                    > > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
                    >
                    > > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the
                    hypothesis
                    > of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
                    > absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by
                    it.
                    >
                    > > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.
                    >
                    > > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of
                    > evolution, rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The
                    > reason you are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any
                    > evidence; clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either.
                    According
                    > to what you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some
                    scientists
                    > whom you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they
                    are
                    > not the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit
                    > it.
                    > >
                    >
                    > T: I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for
                    anything
                    > when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't
                    > learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of
                    > injustice."
                    >
                    >
                    > Kamran: Some of the people in this debate are here to demonstrate that
                    > evolution is the best explanation for the diversity, if not origination,
                    of
                    > life. If I am not mistaken, you stand on that side as well. On this basis
                    > you should provide evidence to justify your position. Telling us that some
                    > scientists stand behind the evolutionary explanation does not on its own
                    > offer any evidence for evolution.






                    T: I have already explained. I am convinced I will fail any attempt to
                    demonstrate that evolution is the best explanation to you.





                    Kamran: But I have never seen you try. If you absolutely don't know where
                    to begin to make a case for evolution, what drives you to place yourself in
                    the evolutionary camp?



                    T: Now then. How does the Creator run things?





                    Kamran: The apparent inane way you have popped this question repeatedly in
                    this and many of your following responses does not really suggest that you
                    are ready for a discussion about this topic. You are really not conveying
                    any sense to me that you respect the enormity of this question and how the
                    knowledge about it should be developed.






                    > ****************************
                    >
                    > T: How do you explain how the Creator runs things by having me present
                    > evidence for evolution?
                    >

                    >
                    > Kamran: I don't know how you managed to take two different segments of
                    this
                    > discussion and link them together!! I never said that my explanation on
                    > how the Creator runs things is contingent on you offering an evidence for
                    > evolution. Meantime if you do manage to present evidence for evolution, in
                    > addition to you capturing the trophy of being the first one to do so, you
                    > will have, in a way, partly explained how the creator runs things. However
                    > if you come to the realization that you can't offer a single piece of
                    viable
                    > evidence for evolution, then it would be expected of you to stop
                    presenting
                    > yourself as a proponent of evolution, and genuinely seek other
                    explanations
                    > on how the Creator runs things.




                    T: I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have knowledge of how
                    the Creator runs things.





                    Kamran: Well this position doesn't make any sense from a seemingly mature
                    person that you come across. We are talking about a very serious topic
                    here. You mean your lack of knowledge about how the Creator runs things
                    compels you to assume evolution on a no-questions-asked basis? I have seen
                    this position by many people, and am baffled as to what drives people toward
                    it. Why can't you reject evolution for obviously being a non-starter
                    proposition, and at the same time withhold your consent to any Creative
                    Causation explanation until you hear something that is convincing to you.




                    T: I am genuinely seeking explanations. If you do not explain how the
                    Creator runs things, then I guess you want me to continue to be a proponent
                    of evolution.





                    Kamran: I am not a guardian for your thoughts. You have to decide for
                    yourself as to why you may remain a proponent of evolution. Your above
                    rationale is not logical at all.





                    > > > *****************************
                    > > >
                    > > > T: But if the leading scientists in the world haven't offered a piece
                    of
                    > evidence yet, I don't think a backwoods hillbilly like me is going to be
                    > able to.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > > > Kamran: For a person who is wondering whether scientists have offered
                    > any evidence yet, and that he himself doesn't know of any evidence to
                    offer
                    > and defend here, you sure have made some quite strong statements about the
                    > scientific merits of the ToE!! Isn't there some backwoods hillbilly
                    > principle that says: "thou shall not speak in vain??"
                    >
                    >
                    > > T: I am not wondering whether scientists have offered evidence. I am
                    > saying that if I present any evidence, it will be what other scientists
                    have
                    > already presented.
                    >
                    >
                    > > K: I have important news for you: scientists have not offered any
                    evidence
                    > or what they have offered as alleged evidence is laughable. You can still
                    > win the gold medal if you present the first piece of evidence.
                    > >
                    >
                    > T: I have important news for you too Kamran. Evolution theory is taught at
                    > the Universities as a course all alone. I have an evolution textbook. It
                    is
                    > perfectly legal to teach evolution in the high school science classroom.
                    >
                    >
                    > Kamran: OK so it would be easy for you to look into that evolution text
                    book
                    > of yours, and give a distilled outline of what sort of evidence the book
                    > offers for evolution. If I can't offer any good argument to reject that
                    > evidence, then I'll stop saying that evolution is, for sure, a non-starter
                    > idea. Telling me that there are books written on evolution does not do the
                    > trick here, because I have already laid out my reasons as to why I
                    consider
                    > evolution to be a product of junk science not real science.

                    T: I admit, there is not a single argument for evolution that I can come up
                    with that will make you think it is anything other than a product of junk
                    science.



                    But that doesn't mean you can't share with me how the Creator runs things.





                    Kamran: Yes it does mean that, because you must at least make an effort
                    toward telling me why you don't think it (the evolutionary explanation) is
                    junk science.



                    *********************************



                    > T: On the other hand, creationism (i.e. explanations on how the creator
                    runs
                    > things) is not taught in any science courses at the University level that
                    I
                    > am aware of. It is not legal to teach such a course in a high school
                    science
                    > course.
                    >
                    > You seem to live in a dream world where you laugh a lot.
                    >

                    >
                    > Kamran: Needless to say that laughing is generally good for you, and, to
                    > their credit, the claims made by evolutionists do give good grounds for
                    big
                    > laughs. Creative Causation is not taught in any science course because it
                    > is a very new science. To be honest, Creationism in general also has some
                    > purely religious constituents that need to be gradually weeded out before
                    > the science-oriented or science-based portion of Creationism makes its way
                    > through to science classes.

                    T: Are those "purely religious constituents" false?





                    Kamran: Almost entirely. Understanding Creative Causation requires
                    practical knowledge and unimpeded logic in deciphering the constitutional
                    factors and processes in many natural phenomena, especially life. How can
                    religions help with that?



                    T: Also we already have "science based creationism".
                    http://www.nwcreation.net/





                    Kamran: But the version of Science-based creationism I am talking about does
                    not start with quotes from God.



                    *****************************



                    K: Since science-based Creationism will
                    > drastically change people's worldviews about how things got here and where
                    > things will most likely go from here, you can imagine that many who hold
                    > controlling positions in the political and economic power pyramid in the
                    > world (depending on where they stand in the pyramid) will show tough
                    > resistance against it because nearly every facet of world affairs will be
                    > restructured once the genuine scientific recognition of Creative Causation
                    > becomes universal.

                    T: Oh yea. I read The Wedge Document too. I think they may have to extend
                    that 20 year goal though.





                    Kamran: What is the Wedge Document?



                    *******************************************


                    K: Countries will no longer exist. Human societies will
                    > merge. Global economic and trade priorities and programs will change.
                    > Reasons for wars will cease. Markets for weapons will vanish. Winning by
                    > some will not require losing by others ... in a nutshell, there is much
                    more
                    > at stake here than just an impartial judgment on which way the science
                    > points, ie. evolution (be it naturalistic or divinely driven) vs. Creative
                    > Causation (through active, real-time, judicious and direct
                    implementation).
                    >

                    T: And where is "how the Creator runs things" in all of this?





                    Kamran: donnow..it was here somewhere, as maybe in: "active, real-time,
                    judicious and direct implementation???!"



                    > > **************************************



                    > > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
                    > Theory" is a shame though.
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At
                    least
                    > you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
                    > >
                    >
                    > T: Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of
                    > intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the
                    > passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that
                    > their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.
                    >
                    > I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.
                    >
                    >
                    > Kamran: You are still not giving even one good reason (in the form of a
                    > viable evidence) as to why you don't think ToE is a sham (effectively,
                    that
                    > is).




                    T: OK, here it is. Now pay attention:

                    I have convinced myself that I cannot give a good reason to you (in the form
                    of a viable evidence).





                    Kamran: I am actually looking for what good reasons have you given to
                    yourself.





                    ***************************************



                    K: Obviously Creative Causation and Intelligent Design may have some
                    > variances in the composition of arguments or the scope of conclusions;
                    this
                    > is not a surprise. I don't speak for DI here. As far as ToE is concerned,
                    > I don't see that there is anything to be taught about it; looking at life
                    > from its information-based quantum-mechanical foundations, ToE is totally
                    > devoid of supporting facts or even plausible arguments. So for starters,
                    ToE
                    > should be eliminated from all formal schooling. In my view the substitute
                    > is Creative Causation. On the methodology and content of teaching the
                    > Creative Causation, and within the north American context, first a lot of
                    > seminars will have to be held for school boards everywhere so that the
                    > members in these boards fully grasp the rationale for a shift and then a
                    lot
                    > of resources will have to be allocated to develop curricula and teaching
                    > methodologies for various school levels. But then again, we are a long way
                    > off from getting passed the political barriers standing on the way of this
                    > essential academic shift.

                    T: Yes, those obstacles were mentioned as part of Phase I in The Wedge
                    Document.

                    So once we get passed the barriers, will you then be able to explain how the
                    Creator runs things?





                    Kamran: Sure, by then they may even invent special injections for
                    transferring this knowledge!



                    > > > *********************************
                    > >
                    > > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
                    > information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
                    > pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized
                    and
                    > distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
                    > orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
                    > energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
                    > influence of natural forces.
                    >
                    >
                    > > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
                    > cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
                    > universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
                    > like the movie.
                    >
                    >
                    > > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
                    > under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
                    > system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe
                    would
                    > be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life
                    outside
                    > this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act)
                    is
                    > another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
                    > Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
                    > intelligent life.
                    >
                    >
                    > > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility
                    for
                    > them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
                    > >
                    > > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
                    > design, but not common ancestry.
                    >
                    >
                    > > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even
                    > the Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
                    > unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
                    > structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
                    > development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
                    > overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like
                    our
                    > cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
                    > the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
                    > life out there.
                    >
                    > T: You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am
                    not
                    > saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.
                    >

                    > Kamran: Yes the creator has limitations that are imposed by his own
                    rational
                    > intentions. For instance if he had decided for humans to be 10 meters
                    tall,
                    > he would have had to reengineer the whole universe and could not have
                    > reached his current objective with Human creation if he had placed
                    ten-meter
                    > tall humans on the existing earth-solar-universe platform.

                    T: Well, if the Creator wanted humans to be 10 meters tall, he would have
                    engineered the whole universe accordingly. Doesn't your Creator plan ahead?

                    Anyway, I am not saying the cockroach aliens are 10 meters tall. The are
                    somewhere between 5'7" and 6'0". The genes are not as variable for height as
                    they are with humans.





                    Kamran: As long as you remember that human and cockroach systems are not
                    interchangeable.





                    ********************************






                    K: The entire
                    > mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have to be changed
                    > and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have balanced a
                    ten-meter
                    > man creation equation in such a way that would allow him to achieve the
                    > objective he has for the current creation process.

                    T: Well, if the Creator wanted 10 meter humans, he could have created a
                    universe that would support them first couldn't He?





                    Kamran: That's the whole point. I for one can't say with certainty that he
                    could. If we just assume he could, then we should also assume he could
                    optimize a creation with a size relative to which we are already ten meters
                    tall, ie. a creation with much shorter human beings. How far could he
                    continue to scale down? I don't think he can scale down to zero (!) or
                    anywhere near it. I definitely don't think he can transcommunicate a human
                    character through the neural systems of an ant or the brain of a bear. By
                    the same logic, he can't scale up without any prohibitions or without
                    appearing very grossly redundant. For instance had he sized our earth to be
                    as big as Jupiter with as much more resources, would the human society live
                    with the same constraints and culture that their life, and its intellectual
                    development process, is designed and conceptualized to be in the current
                    earth? The answer is obviously a No? This subject is not as philosophical
                    as parallel universes. It is a practical subject. Recognizing that the
                    Creator is subject to certain limitations or constraints is a practical
                    matter. Creative Causation is not a religion, so the Creator is not the
                    proverbial God.

                    > **********************************
                    >
                    >
                    > T: I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks
                    > like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to
                    > produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but
                    > cockroach qualities in appearance.
                    >
                    > I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator
                    > are?
                    >
                    >
                    > Kamran: Basically through an effort of rational thinking. Such an effort
                    > would result in seeing that the outputs of a human body system cannot at
                    the
                    > same time be obtained from a cockroach body system. The Creator cannot
                    > operate outside the rationality that links his methods to his purpose or
                    > objectives. For instance he cannot have a workable number system where
                    > number 5 also fulfills the role of number 7.

                    T: No, the cockroach alien would have features of cockroaches and humans
                    because of common design, not common ancestry. The human part would have the
                    endoskeleton and brain size. It would be warm blooded. But it would also
                    have bony plate exoskeleton similar to turtles, but it would look like an
                    insect exoskeleton. They would have an extra par of arms that would be the
                    same as the upper arms, but do not have opposable thumbs. They would also
                    have antenna to help with olfactory senses to judge depth and direction of
                    odors. A closer examination of body parts would show they are not really
                    cockroaches, but when you first look at them, you know they are not humans,
                    and the best example to describe them would be human cockroach. However they
                    were designed, they would have to be designed through an effort of rational
                    thinking for that part of the world, in that part of the universe they came
                    from.





                    Kamran: Rational thinking doesn't assume anything goes "in that part of the
                    universe."



                    > ****************************
                    > > >
                    > > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
                    > critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
                    > arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
                    > character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these
                    empirical
                    > manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
                    > secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
                    > ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
                    > haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of
                    the
                    > system of life and its customized environment within a violent
                    inhospitable
                    > space-time envelop.
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    > > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should
                    be
                    > inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
                    > obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not
                    saying
                    > the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven evolution
                    > from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.
                    >
                    > T: That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked
                    > up on the inferential trails.
                    >
                    > On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is
                    not
                    > looking for them because he says there are none.

                    >
                    > Kamran: Good thing that you are looking for them, and you must have
                    already
                    > had a good reason to keep looking. I am sure you will find them because
                    > they are within and all around you.

                    T: Thank you for the encouragement. I figure you have a better chance
                    finding them if you look than you would if you don't.

                    When I find them I will let the group know.



                    Kamran: GR8



                    > > ************************************
                    > >

                    K: I also don't
                    > deny that many contribute to the objective of the present-day evolution
                    > conspiracy out of ignorance; these could also be classified as the victims
                    > of the conspiracy.

                    T: So would agree with Jim that this Ball State incident is part of some big
                    conspiracy to silence opposition to Darwinian Propaganda?

                    Truman



                    Kamran: What was the Ball State incident?
                    <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3471096/grpspId=1707281911/msgId
                    =32505/stime=1375711859>





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Truman
                    ... I have told you before, it is the comprehensive information in the scientific literature. It is not just one single piece of evidence that makes the case
                    Message 9 of 23 , Aug 6, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kamran" <forkamran@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of Truman
                      > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:30 AM
                      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
                      > (show me the conspiracy)
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > > > > > Kamran: It makes me laugh that they still haven't learned how the
                      > > Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of injustice.
                      > >
                      > > > > > Truman: How does the Creator run things? Perhaps you have found the
                      > > inferential trail that the folks at Discovery Institute (and Jim) say does
                      > > not exist?
                      > >
                      > > > > > Kamran: Well if you are interested in discussing that subject, it
                      > > would be essential for you to first acknowledge that the theory of
                      > evolution
                      > > is a sham (or be the first person to offer a piece of evidence for it that
                      > > passes the laughing test).
                      > >
                      > > > > T: I am not familiar with the laughing test.
                      > >
                      > > > > Kamran: Well take any evidence ever presented to support the
                      > hypothesis
                      > > of biological evolution from bacteria to man, and you will laugh at the
                      > > absurdity of evidence with respect to the claim purportedly supported by
                      > it.
                      > >
                      > > > T: I still don't see anything to laugh about regarding evolution.
                      > >
                      > > > Kamran: In this case the laugh is not directly about the idea of
                      > > evolution, rather the evidence presented to support it is laughable. The
                      > > reason you are not laughing is because you are not even looking at any
                      > > evidence; clearly you are not presenting any evidence here either.
                      > According
                      > > to what you are saying here, you are trusting the opinion of some
                      > scientists
                      > > whom you assume are the authority on the subject. The truth is that they
                      > are
                      > > not the authority on the subject but many don't have the honesty to admit
                      > > it.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > T: I guess I am not really sure why I have to present evidence for
                      > anything
                      > > when you are the one that said: "It makes me laugh that they still haven't
                      > > learned how the Creator runs things to hit back at the perpetrators of
                      > > injustice."
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Kamran: Some of the people in this debate are here to demonstrate that
                      > > evolution is the best explanation for the diversity, if not origination,
                      > of
                      > > life. If I am not mistaken, you stand on that side as well. On this basis
                      > > you should provide evidence to justify your position. Telling us that some
                      > > scientists stand behind the evolutionary explanation does not on its own
                      > > offer any evidence for evolution.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > T: I have already explained. I am convinced I will fail any attempt to
                      > demonstrate that evolution is the best explanation to you.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: But I have never seen you try. If you absolutely don't
                      > know where to begin to make a case for evolution, what drives you
                      > to place yourself in the evolutionary camp?

                      I have told you before, it is the comprehensive information in the scientific literature. It is not just one single piece of evidence that makes the case for evolution, but the whole collective of it.

                      What you seem to want me to do, is make the case for YOU. You have already convinced me that I can't do that, so why bother?

                      > T: Now then. How does the Creator run things?
                      >
                      > Kamran: The apparent inane way you have popped this question
                      > repeatedly in this and many of your following responses does not
                      > really suggest that you are ready for a discussion about this
                      > topic. You are really not conveying any sense to me that you
                      > respect the enormity of this question and how the
                      > knowledge about it should be developed.

                      I popped the question because I don't think you have an answer. I was calling your bluff. You claim you know how the Creator runs things, but you wont tell me.

                      > > ****************************

                      > T: I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have
                      > knowledge of how the Creator runs things.
                      >
                      > Kamran: Well this position doesn't make any sense from a seemingly
                      > mature person that you come across. We are talking about a very
                      > serious topic here. You mean your lack of knowledge about how the
                      > Creator runs things compels you to assume evolution on a no-
                      > questions-asked basis?

                      No because in order for intelligent design theory to work for me I to have inferential trails to follow. Seeking out what the Creator is, why it created, how it created, what all it created.....

                      If you can explain how the Creator runs things, then that would be a great start. The would help me see that intelligent design theory is actually a working theory.

                      If you want to sell me intelligent design theory, then you have to show me how the theory is BETTER, not tell me that ToE worse.

                      > I have seen this position by many people,
                      > and am baffled as to what drives people toward it. Why can't you
                      > reject evolution for obviously being a non-starter proposition, and
                      > at the same time withhold your consent to any Creative Causation
                      > explanation until you hear something that is convincing to you.

                      Because this "Creative Causation explanation" at this point doesn't explain anything other than itself. And to me, evolution doesn't explain everything, but it explain a heck of a lot more than any intelligent design theory.

                      > T: I am genuinely seeking explanations. If you do not explain how
                      > the Creator runs things, then I guess you want me to continue to be
                      > proponent of evolution.
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: I am not a guardian for your thoughts. You have to decide
                      > for yourself as to why you may remain a proponent of evolution.
                      > Your above rationale is not logical at all.

                      Well, I have given a little bit more of my rationale. I would say that from my perspective, you rationale is not logical at all.

                      But then again, evolution is the prevailing theory overwhelmingly in the scientific literature. It is taught in all the leading Universities in all the world. It answers almost all of the questions that interests me about the natural world. ID does not tell me anything I don't already know, other than sometimes smart people believe stupid things.



                      >
                      > > > > *****************************

                      > T: I admit, there is not a single argument for evolution that I can
                      > come up with that will make you think it is anything other than a
                      > product of junk science.
                      >
                      > But that doesn't mean you can't share with me how the Creator runs
                      > things.
                      >
                      > Kamran: Yes it does mean that, because you must at least make an
                      > effort toward telling me why you don't think it (the evolutionary
                      > explanation) is junk science.

                      Like I said earlier, evolution is the prevailing theory overwhelmingly in the scientific literature. It is taught in all the leading Universities in all the world.

                      So I guess I don't think the evolutionary explanation is junk science because the vast majority of scientists don't think it is.


                      > *********************************


                      > T: Oh yea. I read The Wedge Document too. I think they may
                      > have to extend that 20 year goal though.
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: What is the Wedge Document?

                      It is a secret document outlining the steps to use intelligent design to subversively make science more theology friendly.



                      > *******************************************
                      >
                      >
                      > K: Countries will no longer exist. Human societies will
                      > > merge. Global economic and trade priorities and programs will change.
                      > > Reasons for wars will cease. Markets for weapons will vanish. Winning by
                      > > some will not require losing by others ... in a nutshell, there is much
                      > more
                      > > at stake here than just an impartial judgment on which way the science
                      > > points, ie. evolution (be it naturalistic or divinely driven) vs. Creative
                      > > Causation (through active, real-time, judicious and direct
                      > implementation).
                      > >
                      >
                      > T: And where is "how the Creator runs things" in all of this?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: donnow..it was here somewhere, as maybe in: "active, real-time,
                      > judicious and direct implementation???!"

                      I was looking for more specifics. Never mind, I am not ready yet.




                      >
                      > > > **************************************
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > > T: I still don't think ToE is a sham. I do thing the "Intelligent Design
                      > > Theory" is a shame though.
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Kamran: But you take these positions with no good reason at all. At
                      > least
                      > > you are not sharing any good reasons here, yet.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > T: Well, I guess one reason would be that the biggest proponents of
                      > > intelligent design theory, the Discovery Institute don't really have the
                      > > passion, zeal and vehemence that you do, because they won't insist that
                      > > their theory be taught along side, or instead of ToE.
                      > >
                      > > I am sure they believe every thing you say about the creator, and ToE.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Kamran: You are still not giving even one good reason (in the form of a
                      > > viable evidence) as to why you don't think ToE is a sham (effectively,
                      > that
                      > > is).
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > T: OK, here it is. Now pay attention:
                      >
                      > I have convinced myself that I cannot give a good reason to you (in the form
                      > of a viable evidence).
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: I am actually looking for what good reasons have you given to
                      > yourself.
                      >

                      Well, I guess one would be that evolution gives a reasonable explanation for the comprehensive fossil record.

                      Is that what you are looking for?

                      >
                      > ***************************************
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > K: Obviously Creative Causation and Intelligent Design may have some
                      > > variances in the composition of arguments or the scope of conclusions;
                      > this
                      > > is not a surprise. I don't speak for DI here. As far as ToE is concerned,
                      > > I don't see that there is anything to be taught about it; looking at life
                      > > from its information-based quantum-mechanical foundations, ToE is totally
                      > > devoid of supporting facts or even plausible arguments. So for starters,
                      > ToE
                      > > should be eliminated from all formal schooling. In my view the substitute
                      > > is Creative Causation. On the methodology and content of teaching the
                      > > Creative Causation, and within the north American context, first a lot of
                      > > seminars will have to be held for school boards everywhere so that the
                      > > members in these boards fully grasp the rationale for a shift and then a
                      > lot
                      > > of resources will have to be allocated to develop curricula and teaching
                      > > methodologies for various school levels. But then again, we are a long way
                      > > off from getting passed the political barriers standing on the way of this
                      > > essential academic shift.
                      >
                      > T: Yes, those obstacles were mentioned as part of Phase I in The Wedge
                      > Document.
                      >
                      > So once we get passed the barriers, will you then be able to explain how the
                      > Creator runs things?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: Sure, by then they may even invent special injections for
                      > transferring this knowledge!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > > > *********************************
                      > > >
                      > > > > > K: You'd then have to allow the possibility that the appearance of
                      > > information-based quantum-mechanical machines/systems roaming around on a
                      > > pressurized open-air space ship energized by an adjacent perfectly sized
                      > and
                      > > distanced star and also motion- and weather-controlled by an odd oversized
                      > > orbiting moon, and ......, can't naturally emerge from a wayward storm of
                      > > energy and matter within a time-space expansion platform under the sole
                      > > influence of natural forces.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > > T: Well, I can do that, just like I allow the possibility of giant
                      > > cockroach aliens that seed planets with genetic material throughout the
                      > > universe. I allow the possibility that we are in a matrix almost exactly
                      > > like the movie.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > > Kamran: In your assumption of cockroach aliens, you must consider that
                      > > under the universal physical laws and conditions, the emergence of a life
                      > > system, in the form of cockroaches or other, anywhere in the universe
                      > would
                      > > be as constrained and prohibited as here on earth. So no alien life
                      > outside
                      > > this earth (unless placed and positioned by the Creator in a direct act)
                      > is
                      > > another universal axiom that must replace the current childish and
                      > > Hollywood-inspired fantasies about extraterrestrial life, let alone
                      > > intelligent life.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > T: I am not assuming cockroach aliens. I said I allow the possibility
                      > for
                      > > them. And yes, they were placed and positioned by "the Creator".
                      > > >
                      > > > They are not the same as cockroaches here on earth. They share a common
                      > > design, but not common ancestry.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > Kamran: Such a possibility should not be allowed for many reasons. Even
                      > > the Creator cannot implement an intelligent entity with a brain as
                      > > unsophisticated as that used in a cockroach and physically a cockroach
                      > > structure would be constrained in doing many things that are necessary for
                      > > development of intelligence and intelligent products. The creator has to
                      > > overcome rational challenges and can't create real-world characters like
                      > our
                      > > cartoon characters or the Follywood scripts. For now I won't get into all
                      > > the other reasons why you should never consider that there are any alien
                      > > life out there.
                      > >
                      > > T: You mean the Creator has limitations on what it creates? Anyway, I am
                      > not
                      > > saying that the cockroach alien is actually a cockroach and human hybrid.
                      > >
                      >
                      > > Kamran: Yes the creator has limitations that are imposed by his own
                      > rational
                      > > intentions. For instance if he had decided for humans to be 10 meters
                      > tall,
                      > > he would have had to reengineer the whole universe and could not have
                      > > reached his current objective with Human creation if he had placed
                      > ten-meter
                      > > tall humans on the existing earth-solar-universe platform.
                      >
                      > T: Well, if the Creator wanted humans to be 10 meters tall, he would have
                      > engineered the whole universe accordingly. Doesn't your Creator plan ahead?
                      >
                      > Anyway, I am not saying the cockroach aliens are 10 meters tall. The are
                      > somewhere between 5'7" and 6'0". The genes are not as variable for height as
                      > they are with humans.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: As long as you remember that human and cockroach systems are not
                      > interchangeable.

                      No, they would be within the limits of the creative abilities of the Creator.


                      > ********************************
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > K: The entire
                      > > mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have to be changed
                      > > and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have balanced a
                      > ten-meter
                      > > man creation equation in such a way that would allow him to achieve the
                      > > objective he has for the current creation process.
                      >
                      > T: Well, if the Creator wanted 10 meter humans, he could have created a
                      > universe that would support them first couldn't He?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: That's the whole point. I for one can't say with certainty that he
                      > could. If we just assume he could, then we should also assume he could
                      > optimize a creation with a size relative to which we are already ten meters
                      > tall, ie. a creation with much shorter human beings. How far could he
                      > continue to scale down? I don't think he can scale down to zero (!) or
                      > anywhere near it.

                      I am not going for the extremes. Look at the size difference between a porpoise and a whale, or rhinoceros and a Baluchitherium, or Europasaurus and Argentinosaurus.

                      I think it is reasonable to assume that a human being can get pretty tall or small if the Creator allowed it to be.

                      I definitely don't think he can transcommunicate a human
                      > character through the neural systems of an ant or the brain of a bear.

                      No No, the Creator would start from scratch. He would build the cockroach alien human one cell at a time. Unless you are saying the Creator constructs living organisms with fully functioning systems? So like a neural system is an IC?

                      By
                      > the same logic, he can't scale up without any prohibitions or without
                      > appearing very grossly redundant. For instance had he sized our earth to be
                      > as big as Jupiter with as much more resources, would the human society live
                      > with the same constraints and culture that their life, and its intellectual
                      > development process, is designed and conceptualized to be in the current
                      > earth? The answer is obviously a No? This subject is not as philosophical
                      > as parallel universes. It is a practical subject. Recognizing that the
                      > Creator is subject to certain limitations or constraints is a practical
                      > matter. Creative Causation is not a religion, so the Creator is not the
                      > proverbial God.


                      So what you are saying is that the physical laws like gravity, molecular forces, 2LoT, are beyond the control of the Creator? The Creator is constrained by what the known physical laws will allow?


                      > > **********************************
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > T: I am saying that the cockroach alien is a unique created kind. It looks
                      > > like a cockroach but when you examine its DNA it has the information to
                      > > produce a living organism that has human like qualities mentally, but
                      > > cockroach qualities in appearance.
                      > >
                      > > I just don't understand how you know what the limitations of the Creator
                      > > are?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Kamran: Basically through an effort of rational thinking. Such an effort
                      > > would result in seeing that the outputs of a human body system cannot at
                      > the
                      > > same time be obtained from a cockroach body system. The Creator cannot
                      > > operate outside the rationality that links his methods to his purpose or
                      > > objectives. For instance he cannot have a workable number system where
                      > > number 5 also fulfills the role of number 7.
                      >
                      > T: No, the cockroach alien would have features of cockroaches and humans
                      > because of common design, not common ancestry. The human part would have the
                      > endoskeleton and brain size. It would be warm blooded. But it would also
                      > have bony plate exoskeleton similar to turtles, but it would look like an
                      > insect exoskeleton. They would have an extra par of arms that would be the
                      > same as the upper arms, but do not have opposable thumbs. They would also
                      > have antenna to help with olfactory senses to judge depth and direction of
                      > odors. A closer examination of body parts would show they are not really
                      > cockroaches, but when you first look at them, you know they are not humans,
                      > and the best example to describe them would be human cockroach. However they
                      > were designed, they would have to be designed through an effort of rational
                      > thinking for that part of the world, in that part of the universe they came
                      > from.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: Rational thinking doesn't assume anything goes "in that part of the
                      > universe."
                      >

                      So you know for a fact that physical reality is absolutely the same in all parts of the universe? You know that time, energy, and matter behave the same in the center of the universe to the edge of the universe?


                      > > ****************************
                      > > > >
                      > > > > > K: Once you are intellectually, and genuinely, beyond these rather
                      > > critical conclusions, then you may be ready for a discussion on logical
                      > > arguments and historic and present empirical manifestations of Creator's
                      > > character and his methodologies in taking his creations forward.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > T: Well, in case I am not ready, could you still present these
                      > empirical
                      > > manifestations to Jim? You can post them in the group, or email him in
                      > > secret. Either way, that is all the evidence I need to show him that there
                      > > ARE inferential trails if you just bother looking for them.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Kamran: Amazing that you have picked up on the inferential trails but
                      > > haven't picked up on the most obvious of them all, ie. the appearance of
                      > the
                      > > system of life and its customized environment within a violent
                      > inhospitable
                      > > space-time envelop.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > T: Why are you chastising me? At least I picked up on that there should
                      > be
                      > > inferential trails. You need to scold Jim for not picking up on them.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Kamran: I just cited my surprise that you haven't picked up on the most
                      > > obvious of the inferential trails. At least on that front, Jim is not
                      > saying
                      > > the creator has created through an autonomous, naturally driven evolution
                      > > from dead mater to man or from bacteria to man.
                      > >
                      > > T: That still does not change the fact that both Jim and I have not picked
                      > > up on the inferential trails.
                      > >
                      > > On that front, at least I am looking for them, but don't see them. He is
                      > not
                      > > looking for them because he says there are none.
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Kamran: Good thing that you are looking for them, and you must have
                      > already
                      > > had a good reason to keep looking. I am sure you will find them because
                      > > they are within and all around you.
                      >
                      > T: Thank you for the encouragement. I figure you have a better chance
                      > finding them if you look than you would if you don't.
                      >
                      > When I find them I will let the group know.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Kamran: GR8
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > > ************************************
                      > > >
                      >
                      > K: I also don't
                      > > deny that many contribute to the objective of the present-day evolution
                      > > conspiracy out of ignorance; these could also be classified as the victims
                      > > of the conspiracy.
                      >
                      > T: So would agree with Jim that this Ball State incident is part of some big
                      > conspiracy to silence opposition to Darwinian Propaganda?
                      >
                      > Truman
                    • JamesG
                      Kamran: What is the Wedge Document? Truman: It is a secret document outlining the steps to use intelligent design to subversively make science more theology
                      Message 10 of 23 , Aug 8, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Kamran: "What is the Wedge Document?"
                        Truman: "It is a secret document outlining the steps to use intelligent design to subversively make science more theology friendly."

                        Oh, for Pete's sake. The so-called Wedge Document has never been a secret. It has been a public document from the outset, which is why paranoid ID foes were able to post it on the Internet and make a bugbear out of it, hoping to show that Discovery Institute aims to impose religious orthodoxy on science and establish a theocracy in America (neither accusation being true). If you'd like to learn the truth about the so-called Wedge Document, Kamran, go here:

                        http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

                        Jim in Missouri
                      • Truman
                        ...
                        Message 11 of 23 , Aug 8, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Kamran: "What is the Wedge Document?"
                          > Truman: "It is a secret document outlining the steps to use
                          > intelligent design to subversively make science more theology
                          > friendly."
                          >
                          > Oh, for Pete's sake. The so-called Wedge Document has never been a
                          > secret.

                          <<<The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge.>>>
                          Discovery's Creation, Roger Downey. Seattle Weekly, February 1, 2006.


                          > It has been a public document from the outset,

                          <<<For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.">>>
                          Discovery's Creation, Roger Downey. Seattle Weekly, February 1, 2006.


                          > which is why paranoid ID foes were able to post it on the Internet
                          > and make a bugbear out of it,

                          <<<Curious, Duss rifled through the 10 or so pages, eyebrows rising ever higher, then proceeded to execute his commission while reserving a copy of the treatise for himself. Within a week, he had shared his find with a friend who shared his interest in questions of evolution, ideology, and the propagation of ideas. Unlike Duss, the friend, Tim Rhodes, was technically savvy, and it took him little time to scan the document and post it to the World Wide Web, where it first appeared on Feb. 5, 1999.>>>
                          Discovery's Creation, Roger Downey. Seattle Weekly, February 1, 2006.



                          > hoping to show that Discovery
                          > Institute aims to impose religious orthodoxy on science and
                          > establish a theocracy in America (neither accusation being true).

                          It does seem that way, but their aims are:

                          To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

                          I can do into more detail of what context "Theistic" and "God" are by quoting more of the document if you like.

                          Also, their aims are to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science, to see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts, and finally to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.


                          > If you'd like to learn the truth about the so-called Wedge
                          > Document, Kamran, go here:
                          >
                          > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

                          From that link:

                          "It is in the context of our concern about the world-view implications of certain scientific theories that our wedge strategy must be understood. Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism -- the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science."

                          If you want to learn the truth, read a few of the posts where Jim tries to deny that this "scientific materialism" is what is known in the scientific community as "scientific methodology".

                          It is not a defense of sound science, but an assault on it.

                          What organization of scientists want to take their theory of expertise and use it to permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life?

                          So I guess I was mistaken when I said ""It is a secret document outlining the steps to use intelligent design to subversively make science more theology friendly."

                          I should have said that it *was* a secret document.

                          Truman
                        • JamesG
                          Me: Oh, for Pete s sake. The so-called Wedge Document has never been a secret. Truman (quoting from a breathless article by Roger Downey): The story begins,
                          Message 12 of 23 , Aug 9, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Me: "Oh, for Pete's sake. The so-called Wedge Document has never been a secret."
                            Truman (quoting from a breathless article by Roger Downey): "The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings 'TOP SECRET' and 'NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.' Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge."

                            Downey's article shows no sign that he tried to corroborate that the "ominous pyramidal diagram," the "mysterious title," and the "rubber-stamped warnings" were the work of Discovery Institute staff rather than embellishments made to the document by DI's enemies. I've become used to mainstream media reporters never giving the benefit of the doubt to ID proponents while always treating the pronouncements of ID's enemies as the gospel truth. Downey's article suggests the same tendency on his part. You can believe his article if you wish, but you have to abandon common sense to do so, as it is utter nonsense to think that a fundraising proposal, which would have to be publicly disseminated to be of any use, was a "TOP SECRET."

                            In any event, I appreciate your ongoing willingness to demonstrate the truthfulness of the following statement by DI, taken from an essay titled, "The 'Wedge Document': So What?":

                            "It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed the evidential case we are making and the challenges that now face neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialistic theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on our sources of funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister plans betrays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who do not, change the subject and speculate about motives, conspiracies and personal associations. We talk about evidence and ideas; our opponents want to talk about us. Indeed, our Darwinist colleagues and some sympathizers in the media have developed a penchant for avoiding discussion about real scientific and philosophical issues. Instead, they have come to rely upon ad hominem attacks, motive-mongering, conspiracy theories, guilt by association and other tactics of intimidation - thus distracting attention from a failing system of thought."

                            http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

                            Jim in Missouri

                            P.S. Here's a link to a satirical "news report" that shines light on the hysteria and paranoia that the "Wedge Document" has engendered among ID's enemies:

                            http://www.discovery.org/a/2748
                          • Kamran
                            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:44 AM To:
                            Message 13 of 23 , Aug 9, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                              Behalf Of Truman
                              Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:44 AM
                              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
                              (Creator vs God)





                              > T: Now then. How does the Creator run things?
                              >
                              > Kamran: The apparent inane way you have popped this question repeatedly in
                              this and many of your following responses does not really suggest that you
                              are ready for a discussion about this topic. You are really not conveying
                              any sense to me that you respect the enormity of this question and how the
                              knowledge about it should be developed.




                              T: I popped the question because I don't think you have an answer. I was
                              calling your bluff. You claim you know how the Creator runs things, but you
                              wont tell me.





                              Kamran: Yes discussing how the Creator runs things has pre-requisites and it
                              is a little more complicated than a salad recipe. I would be disinclined to
                              have that discussion with a person who accepts evolution without knowing
                              why. You have an ideological position on evolution and therefore can't
                              explore far from it.




                              > > ****************************

                              > T: I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have knowledge of
                              how the Creator runs things.
                              >
                              > Kamran: Well this position doesn't make any sense from a seemingly mature
                              person that you come across. We are talking about a very serious topic here.
                              You mean your lack of knowledge about how the Creator runs things compels
                              you to assume evolution on a no-questions-asked basis?

                              No because in order for intelligent design theory to work for me I to have
                              inferential trails to follow. Seeking out what the Creator is, why it
                              created, how it created, what all it created.....

                              If you can explain how the Creator runs things, then that would be a great
                              start. The would help me see that intelligent design theory is actually a
                              working theory.

                              If you want to sell me intelligent design theory, then you have to show me
                              how the theory is BETTER, not tell me that ToE worse.





                              Kamran: Obviously you haven't been paying any attention at all. Intelligent
                              Design theory doesn't even make any reference to a creator, let alone detail
                              his actions or intentions. Jim has stressed that point for countless times.
                              I argue in favor of Creative Causation which is in some elements, most
                              importantly the declaration of the existence of a Creator, different from
                              the ID approach. And I am not here to sell anything to you. I'd be much
                              more interested in how evolution was sold to you.



                              *************************************

                              > T: I admit, there is not a single argument for evolution that I can come
                              up with that will make you think it is anything other than a product of junk
                              science.
                              >
                              > But that doesn't mean you can't share with me how the Creator runs things.
                              >
                              > Kamran: Yes it does mean that, because you must at least make an effort
                              toward telling me why you don't think it (the evolutionary explanation) is
                              junk science.




                              T: Like I said earlier, evolution is the prevailing theory overwhelmingly in
                              the scientific literature. It is taught in all the leading Universities in
                              all the world.

                              So I guess I don't think the evolutionary explanation is junk science
                              because the vast majority of scientists don't think it is.





                              Kamran: I have never seen any poll result backing up your quantification of:
                              "vast majority of scientists." Is this another one of your ideological
                              beliefs or you have actually seen a poll result that verifies your
                              quantification of "the vast majority of scientists?"





                              > *******************************************
                              >
                              > T: OK, here it is. Now pay attention:
                              >
                              > I have convinced myself that I cannot give a good reason to you (in the
                              form
                              > of a viable evidence).
                              >
                              > Kamran: I am actually looking for what good reasons have you given to
                              > yourself.
                              >

                              T: Well, I guess one would be that evolution gives a reasonable explanation
                              for the comprehensive fossil record.

                              Is that what you are looking for?





                              Kamran: But fossil record has no evolutionary explanation and the
                              evolutionary explanations that evolutionists are deducing from the fossil
                              record never pass the laughing test. Evolution does not explain the fossil
                              record, it misrepresents it. Can you show the appearance and development of
                              any limb, or a shift from one species to another, by virtue of the fossil
                              record?





                              ***************************************
                              >
                              > K: The entire mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have
                              to be changed and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have
                              balanced a ten-meter man creation equation in such a way that would allow
                              him to achieve the objective he has for the current creation process.
                              >
                              > T: Well, if the Creator wanted 10 meter humans, he could have created a
                              universe that would support them first couldn't He?

                              >
                              > Kamran: That's the whole point. I for one can't say with certainty that he
                              could. If we just assume he could, then we should also assume he could
                              optimize a creation with a size relative to which we are already ten meters
                              tall, ie. a creation with much shorter human beings. How far could he
                              continue to scale down? I don't think he can scale down to zero (!) or
                              anywhere near it.

                              T: I am not going for the extremes. Look at the size difference between a
                              porpoise and a whale, or rhinoceros and a Baluchitherium, or Europasaurus
                              and Argentinosaurus.

                              I think it is reasonable to assume that a human being can get pretty tall or
                              small if the Creator allowed it to be.





                              Kamran: I am sorry but I was kind of expecting this simplistic response.
                              You have to deepen your thoughts and look at all the follow on implications
                              of a ten-meter man. Man is an intelligent entity with far greater
                              survivability than rhinoceros. The human population is currently 7 billion
                              and could be double that and more in the future. Rhinoceros don't live in
                              buildings and sky scrapers or ride in busses and cars, men do. Rhinoceros
                              didn't need to ride on horses for transportation, men do. If every single
                              variable was to be drastically changed to make a ten-meter man creation
                              possible, it is not certain that such a mathematical equation could be
                              balanced, and also could be set up with the same purpose that the creator
                              has for his Human creation in the current form.



                              *********************************

                              K: I definitely don't think he can transcommunicate a human character
                              through the neural systems of an ant or the brain of a bear.

                              T: No No, the Creator would start from scratch. He would build the cockroach
                              alien human one cell at a time. Unless you are saying the Creator constructs
                              living organisms with fully functioning systems? So like a neural system is
                              an IC?





                              Kamran: No life form can be built one cell at a time. Every life form is a
                              complete systemic package.



                              **********************************



                              K: By the same logic, he can't scale up without any prohibitions or without
                              appearing very grossly redundant. For instance had he sized our earth to be
                              as big as Jupiter with as much more resources, would the human society live
                              with the same constraints and culture that their life, and its intellectual
                              development process, is designed and conceptualized to be in the current
                              earth? The answer is obviously a No? This subject is not as philosophical as
                              parallel universes. It is a practical subject. Recognizing that the Creator
                              is subject to certain limitations or constraints is a practical matter.
                              Creative Causation is not a religion, so the Creator is not the proverbial
                              God.

                              T: So what you are saying is that the physical laws like gravity, molecular
                              forces, 2LoT, are beyond the control of the Creator? The Creator is
                              constrained by what the known physical laws will allow?





                              Kamran: The Creator himself creates the physical laws but if he is to have a
                              rational purpose for his creation, the nature of laws and processes that he
                              can create will be rationally constrained by his purpose.

                              > > **********************************
                              > >
                              > Kamran: Rational thinking doesn't assume anything goes "in that part of
                              the
                              > universe."
                              >

                              T: So you know for a fact that physical reality is absolutely the same in
                              all parts of the universe? You know that time, energy, and matter behave the
                              same in the center of the universe to the edge of the universe?





                              Kamran: Other than the abyss of a black hole, the physical superstructure of
                              the rest of the universe is held together with the same natural forces. As
                              far as the science of astronomy has looked deep into the space and analyzed
                              relative movements and motions and light effects, there is absolutely no
                              sign that the forces of nature are different in different locations of the
                              universe. Very good technical explanations are also available on the
                              subject of the uniformity of physical laws and forces in the universe.



                              http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3471096/grpspId=1707281911/msgId=
                              32522/stime=1375991748





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Truman
                              ... Evolution theory is complicated too. In fact they have very thick textbooks on evolution. The have very thick books on certain aspects of evolution. You
                              Message 14 of 23 , Aug 10, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kamran" <forkamran@...> wrote:
                                >

                                > > T: Now then. How does the Creator run things?
                                > >
                                > > Kamran: The apparent inane way you have popped this question repeatedly in
                                > this and many of your following responses does not really suggest that you
                                > are ready for a discussion about this topic. You are really not conveying
                                > any sense to me that you respect the enormity of this question and how the
                                > knowledge about it should be developed.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > T: I popped the question because I don't think you have an answer. I was
                                > calling your bluff. You claim you know how the Creator runs things, but you
                                > wont tell me.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: Yes discussing how the Creator runs things has pre-requisites and it
                                > is a little more complicated than a salad recipe. I would be disinclined to
                                > have that discussion with a person who accepts evolution without knowing
                                > why. You have an ideological position on evolution and therefore can't
                                > explore far from it.
                                >

                                Evolution theory is complicated too. In fact they have very thick textbooks on evolution. The have very thick books on certain aspects of evolution.

                                You have mentioned time and time again how the evidence for evolution is laughable. I don't want to be laughed at. I accept evolution as a solid state of the art scientific theory for those things that you find laughable.

                                If that is what you call an ideological position then there is not much I can do about it since you won't give me an better explanation.


                                >
                                > > > ****************************
                                >
                                > > T: I am a proponent of evolution only because I do not have knowledge of
                                > how the Creator runs things.
                                > >
                                > > Kamran: Well this position doesn't make any sense from a seemingly mature
                                > person that you come across. We are talking about a very serious topic here.
                                > You mean your lack of knowledge about how the Creator runs things compels
                                > you to assume evolution on a no-questions-asked basis?
                                >
                                > No because in order for intelligent design theory to work for me I to have
                                > inferential trails to follow. Seeking out what the Creator is, why it
                                > created, how it created, what all it created.....
                                >
                                > If you can explain how the Creator runs things, then that would be a great
                                > start. The would help me see that intelligent design theory is actually a
                                > working theory.
                                >
                                > If you want to sell me intelligent design theory, then you have to show me
                                > how the theory is BETTER, not tell me that ToE worse.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: Obviously you haven't been paying any attention at all. Intelligent
                                > Design theory doesn't even make any reference to a creator, let alone detail
                                > his actions or intentions. Jim has stressed that point for countless times.
                                > I argue in favor of Creative Causation which is in some elements, most
                                > importantly the declaration of the existence of a Creator, different from
                                > the ID approach. And I am not here to sell anything to you. I'd be much
                                > more interested in how evolution was sold to you.
                                >

                                I know intelligent design theory does not do those things, which is why intelligent design theory is a sham.

                                I don't see how detecting design is any different than declaration of the existence of a Creator?

                                I don't see why your are so interested in how evolution is sold to me.

                                It sure seems like you are trying to sell me a variant of intelligent design theory, which I am interested in only if it has some explanations to offer. The kind that Jim sells does not.



                                >
                                > *************************************
                                >
                                > > T: I admit, there is not a single argument for evolution that I can come
                                > up with that will make you think it is anything other than a product of junk
                                > science.
                                > >
                                > > But that doesn't mean you can't share with me how the Creator runs things.
                                > >
                                > > Kamran: Yes it does mean that, because you must at least make an effort
                                > toward telling me why you don't think it (the evolutionary explanation) is
                                > junk science.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > T: Like I said earlier, evolution is the prevailing theory overwhelmingly in
                                > the scientific literature. It is taught in all the leading Universities in
                                > all the world.
                                >
                                > So I guess I don't think the evolutionary explanation is junk science
                                > because the vast majority of scientists don't think it is.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: I have never seen any poll result backing up your quantification of:
                                > "vast majority of scientists." Is this another one of your ideological
                                > beliefs or you have actually seen a poll result that verifies your
                                > quantification of "the vast majority of scientists?"
                                >

                                I have never seen a poll either. I tend to read articles from science journals. Most of the articles I read are research misquotes similar to the ones the Jim and Laurie like to use.

                                I have a few text books on evolution too. I have had a life long interest in fossils, dinosaurs and insects. In regard to what they are, and why they are the way they are, I have only found evolutionary explanations. I have taken a few college classes, talked with a few professors, step in a research lab a time or two, gone out in the field and collected data.

                                I don't know much about creative causation, or the creator, that would have me think what I thought I knew was just laughable.

                                I hate to tell you this, but your opinions about evolution seem to be in the minority of minorities.


                                >
                                > > *******************************************
                                > >
                                > > T: OK, here it is. Now pay attention:
                                > >
                                > > I have convinced myself that I cannot give a good reason to you (in the
                                > form
                                > > of a viable evidence).
                                > >
                                > > Kamran: I am actually looking for what good reasons have you given to
                                > > yourself.
                                > >
                                >
                                > T: Well, I guess one would be that evolution gives a reasonable explanation
                                > for the comprehensive fossil record.
                                >
                                > Is that what you are looking for?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: But fossil record has no evolutionary explanation and the
                                > evolutionary explanations that evolutionists are deducing from the fossil
                                > record never pass the laughing test.

                                See, I told you I would be wasting my time trying to give you what I think is a reasonable explanation.

                                Evolution does not explain the fossil
                                > record, it misrepresents it. Can you show the appearance and development of
                                > any limb, or a shift from one species to another, by virtue of the fossil
                                > record?

                                I cannot show it to your satisfaction.

                                Can you get back to my question about explaining to me how the creator runs things?




                                >
                                > ***************************************
                                > >
                                > > K: The entire mathematical foundation of universe and creation would have
                                > to be changed and it is not at all clear that the Creator could have
                                > balanced a ten-meter man creation equation in such a way that would allow
                                > him to achieve the objective he has for the current creation process.
                                > >
                                > > T: Well, if the Creator wanted 10 meter humans, he could have created a
                                > universe that would support them first couldn't He?
                                >
                                > >
                                > > Kamran: That's the whole point. I for one can't say with certainty that he
                                > could. If we just assume he could, then we should also assume he could
                                > optimize a creation with a size relative to which we are already ten meters
                                > tall, ie. a creation with much shorter human beings. How far could he
                                > continue to scale down? I don't think he can scale down to zero (!) or
                                > anywhere near it.
                                >
                                > T: I am not going for the extremes. Look at the size difference between a
                                > porpoise and a whale, or rhinoceros and a Baluchitherium, or Europasaurus
                                > and Argentinosaurus.
                                >
                                > I think it is reasonable to assume that a human being can get pretty tall or
                                > small if the Creator allowed it to be.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: I am sorry but I was kind of expecting this simplistic response.

                                Don't be sorry. For what it is worth, you are giving me the dismissive responses I am expecting. Though some of them are not as simplistic as I expected.




                                > You have to deepen your thoughts and look at all the follow on implications
                                > of a ten-meter man.

                                I didn't say it had to be 10 meters. I am saying that he could have been maybe 4 meters.


                                > Man is an intelligent entity with far greater
                                > survivability than rhinoceros.

                                Cockroaches have existed and survived a lot longer than humans. Are they intelligent entities too? I think there are some bacteria that have survived exposure to out space.


                                The human population is currently 7 billion
                                > and could be double that and more in the future. Rhinoceros don't live in
                                > buildings and sky scrapers or ride in busses and cars, men do. Rhinoceros
                                > didn't need to ride on horses for transportation, men do. If every single
                                > variable was to be drastically changed to make a ten-meter man creation
                                > possible, it is not certain that such a mathematical equation could be
                                > balanced, and also could be set up with the same purpose that the creator
                                > has for his Human creation in the current form.

                                So are you saying that man, buildings, sky scrapers, busses, cars were all created at once? Or that man was created with the intention that he would have to be around 2 meters tall, because otherwise he would be too big to occupy a building or ride the bus?



                                >
                                >
                                > *********************************
                                >
                                > K: I definitely don't think he can transcommunicate a human character
                                > through the neural systems of an ant or the brain of a bear.
                                >
                                > T: No No, the Creator would start from scratch. He would build the cockroach
                                > alien human one cell at a time. Unless you are saying the Creator constructs
                                > living organisms with fully functioning systems? So like a neural system is
                                > an IC?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: No life form can be built one cell at a time. Every life form is a
                                > complete systemic package.
                                >

                                Well how am I supposed to know how your creator runs things when you don't tell me.

                                So if the Creator does not assemble his life forms on cell at a time, how does he do it? He does it one gene at a time? One base pair at a time?

                                > **********************************
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > K: By the same logic, he can't scale up without any prohibitions or without
                                > appearing very grossly redundant. For instance had he sized our earth to be
                                > as big as Jupiter with as much more resources, would the human society live
                                > with the same constraints and culture that their life, and its intellectual
                                > development process, is designed and conceptualized to be in the current
                                > earth? The answer is obviously a No? This subject is not as philosophical as
                                > parallel universes. It is a practical subject. Recognizing that the Creator
                                > is subject to certain limitations or constraints is a practical matter.
                                > Creative Causation is not a religion, so the Creator is not the proverbial
                                > God.
                                >
                                > T: So what you are saying is that the physical laws like gravity, molecular
                                > forces, 2LoT, are beyond the control of the Creator? The Creator is
                                > constrained by what the known physical laws will allow?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: The Creator himself creates the physical laws but if he is to have a
                                > rational purpose for his creation, the nature of laws and processes that he
                                > can create will be rationally constrained by his purpose.


                                I guess that was what meant. As long as we know what his purpose is, we know that the laws and processes of nature used for that purpose are rationally constrained.

                                The part I don't understand is the purpose.


                                > > > **********************************
                                > > >
                                > > Kamran: Rational thinking doesn't assume anything goes "in that part of
                                > the
                                > > universe."
                                > >
                                >
                                > T: So you know for a fact that physical reality is absolutely the same in
                                > all parts of the universe? You know that time, energy, and matter behave the
                                > same in the center of the universe to the edge of the universe?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Kamran: Other than the abyss of a black hole, the physical superstructure of
                                > the rest of the universe is held together with the same natural forces.
                                As
                                > far as the science of astronomy has looked deep into the space and analyzed
                                > relative movements and motions and light effects, there is absolutely no
                                > sign that the forces of nature are different in different locations of the
                                > universe. Very good technical explanations are also available on the
                                > subject of the uniformity of physical laws and forces in the universe.
                                >

                                OK No sense looking otherwise then? I hope Victor is not disappointed.

                                Truman
                              • Truman
                                ... Common sense tells me that the document in question was not intended for public dissemination. Common sense also tells me that it was not just a fund
                                Message 15 of 23 , Aug 10, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Me: "Oh, for Pete's sake. The so-called Wedge Document has never
                                  > been a secret."
                                  > Truman (quoting from a breathless article by Roger Downey): "The
                                  > story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late
                                  > January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle
                                  > office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was
                                  > also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was
                                  > handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of
                                  > desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to
                                  > feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-
                                  > stamped warnings 'TOP SECRET' and 'NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.' Its cover
                                  > bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy
                                  > reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the
                                  > Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The
                                  > Wedge."
                                  >
                                  > Downey's article shows no sign that he tried to corroborate that
                                  > the "ominous pyramidal diagram," the "mysterious title," and the
                                  > "rubber-stamped warnings" were the work of Discovery Institute
                                  > staff rather than embellishments made to the document by DI's
                                  > enemies. I've become used to mainstream media reporters never
                                  > giving the benefit of the doubt to ID proponents while always
                                  > treating the pronouncements of ID's enemies as the gospel truth.
                                  > Downey's article suggests the same tendency on his part. You can
                                  > believe his article if you wish, but you have to abandon common
                                  > sense to do so, as it is utter nonsense to think that a fundraising
                                  > proposal, which would have to be publicly disseminated to be of any
                                  > use, was a "TOP SECRET."

                                  Common sense tells me that the document in question was not intended for public dissemination. Common sense also tells me that it was not just a "fund raising proposal".




                                  > In any event, I appreciate your ongoing willingness to demonstrate
                                  > the truthfulness of the following statement by DI, taken from an
                                  > essay titled, "The 'Wedge Document': So What?":
                                  >
                                  > "It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed
                                  > the evidential case we are making and the challenges that now face
                                  > neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialistic
                                  > theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on our
                                  > sources of funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister
                                  > plans betrays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist
                                  > community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who
                                  > do not, change the subject and speculate about motives,
                                  > conspiracies and personal associations. We talk about evidence and
                                  > ideas; our opponents want to talk about us. Indeed, our Darwinist
                                  > colleagues and some sympathizers in the media have developed a
                                  > penchant for avoiding discussion about real scientific and
                                  > philosophical issues. Instead, they have come to rely upon ad
                                  > hominem attacks, motive-mongering, conspiracy theories, guilt by
                                  > association and other tactics of intimidation - thus distracting
                                  > attention from a failing system of thought."
                                  >
                                  > http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

                                  Sheesh!

                                  All I meant was that the folks who wrote the Wedge document think that because of Darwin's legacy science now attempts to explain all human behavior as the result of materialistic forces and ignores, if not denies the spiritual side of man. That science has changed into a philosophical materialism belief system. That this belief system is not just consumed the natural sciences but has spread to other sciences such as social a political. That new discoveries, particularly by ID theorists, are showing that naturalistic explanations are not sufficient and that supernatural explanation are worth looking into again. That together, IDer's are going to rebuild the sciences after the death of this materialistic philosophy.

                                  Now that this public relations campaign was going on was not a secret. "Intelligent Design Theory" was looked at by the scientific community and deemed not much of a scientific theory, and did not explain very much anyway. But the persistence of IDer's trying to get their theory accepted as science, and presented as a theory with more explanatory power than it has into the schools made several people wonder if there is more of an agenda than just explaining natural phenomena.

                                  The Wedge document just confirmed what many suspected and how this strategy was going to be carried out. That IDer's want to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. Intend to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture. That design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. They will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.

                                  What I meant by "subversive" is, well as Elizabeth Nickson put it:
                                  <<<Furthermore, the purpose of the Discovery Institute is plain. Phillip Johnson, a senior fellow at the Institute, stated last year on a Christian radio talk show that "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.">>>
                                  http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Page.aspx?pid=2830

                                  I don't see why raising my eyebrows about how what you have called several times a "theory about design detection" is going be a dominant perspective in science, be applied in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; an influence in the fine arts, and permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life amounts to hominem attacks, motive-mongering, conspiracy theories, guilt by association and other tactics of intimidation?



                                  > P.S. Here's a link to a satirical "news report" that shines light
                                  > on the hysteria and paranoia that the "Wedge Document" has
                                  > engendered among ID's enemies:
                                  >
                                  > http://www.discovery.org/a/2748

                                  Ha Ha. That was almost as funny as those other satirical "news reports" that shine light on the hysteria and paranoia at Ball State.

                                  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/ball_state_univ_1075021.html
                                  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/ball_state_pres075041.html

                                  Truman
                                • Kamran
                                  From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Truman Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 7:14 AM To:
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Aug 13, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                    Behalf Of Truman
                                    Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 7:14 AM
                                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwin's Tree of Life is rotten from the roots up
                                    (Creator vs God)



                                    > Kamran: Yes discussing how the Creator runs things has pre-requisites and
                                    it is a little more complicated than a salad recipe. I would be disinclined
                                    to have that discussion with a person who accepts evolution without knowing
                                    why. You have an ideological position on evolution and therefore can't
                                    explore far from it.
                                    >

                                    T: Evolution theory is complicated too. In fact they have very thick
                                    textbooks on evolution. They have very thick books on certain aspects of
                                    evolution.





                                    Kamran: Throughout history thick books have been written about a lot of
                                    subjects. How many of that is considered good knowledge from today's
                                    vantage point? It is not the thickness of a book that determines its
                                    quality. The quality comes from the reader receiving robust advanced
                                    knowledge which he can present and logically defend.

                                    *******************************

                                    T: You have mentioned time and time again how the evidence for evolution is
                                    laughable. I don't want to be laughed at. I accept evolution as a solid
                                    state of the art scientific theory for those things that you find laughable.

                                    If that is what you call an ideological position then there is not much I
                                    can do about it since you won't give me an better explanation.



                                    Kamran: What has been presented as evidence for evolution is laughable in
                                    relation to the claims and effects attributed to it. Your position is
                                    ideological because the ToE has explained absolutely nothing to you on even
                                    one of the countless fundamental questions about life forms and their
                                    diversity, yet you are willing to stand up and call it a "state of the art
                                    scientific theory." Man-monkey look alike analysis is the height of the
                                    exactness of the evolutionary science when it comes to explaining the
                                    so-called trees of life. The evolutionary science and most so-called
                                    evolutionary scientists are all but illiterate about how the internal
                                    systems in the machine of life work, yet you stand up and call it a state of
                                    the art theory in explaining life. When you accept something on
                                    no-questions-asked basis, that, my friend, is a hardline ideology.


                                    ***************************************

                                    > T: No because in order for intelligent design theory to work for me I to
                                    have inferential trails to follow. Seeking out what the Creator is, why it
                                    created, how it created, what all it created.....
                                    >
                                    > If you can explain how the Creator runs things, then that would be a great
                                    start. The would help me see that intelligent design theory is actually a
                                    working theory.
                                    >
                                    > If you want to sell me intelligent design theory, then you have to show me
                                    how the theory is BETTER, not tell me that ToE worse.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Kamran: Obviously you haven't been paying any attention at all.
                                    Intelligent Design theory doesn't even make any reference to a creator, let
                                    alone detail his actions or intentions. Jim has stressed that point for
                                    countless times. I argue in favor of Creative Causation which is in some
                                    elements, most importantly the declaration of the existence of a Creator,
                                    different from the ID approach. And I am not here to sell anything to you.
                                    I'd be much more interested in how evolution was sold to you.
                                    >

                                    T: I know intelligent design theory does not do those things, which is why
                                    intelligent design theory is a sham.

                                    I don't see how detecting design is any different than declaration of the
                                    existence of a Creator?

                                    I don't see why your are so interested in how evolution is sold to me.





                                    Kamran: Because I still have a mystery to solve for myself as to how mature
                                    and intelligent people like yourself, who do decide to study about the
                                    subject, don't reach the conclusion that ToE is one big lie, or somehow find
                                    themselves compelled to withhold this admission. They never present any
                                    viable arguments and evidence for evolution, which presumably they should
                                    have seen to accept the theory, yet they cling to it like members of cult.





                                    *********************************





                                    T: It sure seems like you are trying to sell me a variant of intelligent
                                    design theory, which I am interested in only if it has some explanations to
                                    offer. The kind that Jim sells does not.





                                    Kamran: Yes in so far as its conclusion that self replicating
                                    information-based quantum-mechanical systems can not be the
                                    independent/autonomous product of blind unconscious natural forces, the
                                    Creative Causation would have something in common with ID. Whether you have
                                    managed to pick up any substance in the explanations given to you about ID
                                    or Creative Causation is really immaterial. This is not about marketing an
                                    ideology or doing a good sales job. This is about you searching for what is
                                    closest to the truth. It is your responsibility to pick out the better
                                    explanation, not Jim's or my responsibility to force feed an explanation to
                                    you. If you demand an interview with the Creator or evidence in the form of
                                    him doing something at the time and form of your choosing, then you better
                                    stick to the evolutionary explanations forever.




                                    > *************************************
                                    >
                                    > T: Like I said earlier, evolution is the prevailing theory overwhelmingly
                                    in the scientific literature. It is taught in all the leading Universities
                                    in all the world.
                                    >
                                    > So I guess I don't think the evolutionary explanation is junk science
                                    because the vast majority of scientists don't think it is.
                                    >

                                    > Kamran: I have never seen any poll result backing up your quantification
                                    of: "vast majority of scientists." Is this another one of your ideological
                                    beliefs or you have actually seen a poll result that verifies your
                                    quantification of "the vast majority of scientists?"
                                    >

                                    T: I have never seen a poll either. I tend to read articles from science
                                    journals. Most of the articles I read are research misquotes similar to the
                                    ones the Jim and Laurie like to use.

                                    I have a few text books on evolution too. I have had a life long interest in
                                    fossils, dinosaurs and insects. In regard to what they are, and why they are
                                    the way they are, I have only found evolutionary explanations. I have taken
                                    a few college classes, talked with a few professors, step in a research lab
                                    a time or two, gone out in the field and collected data.

                                    I don't know much about creative causation, or the creator, that would have
                                    me think what I thought I knew was just laughable.

                                    I hate to tell you this, but your opinions about evolution seem to be in the
                                    minority of minorities.





                                    Kamran: Not sure if that's true among the serious people who actually delve
                                    into this topic, but I guess you should stick to the majority, if that's the
                                    only way you assess the veracity of an explanation!!!!!!!


                                    >
                                    > > *******************************************
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > T: Well, I guess one would be that evolution gives a reasonable
                                    explanation for the comprehensive fossil record.
                                    >
                                    > Is that what you are looking for?
                                    >

                                    > Kamran: But fossil record has no evolutionary explanation and the
                                    evolutionary explanations that evolutionists are deducing from the fossil
                                    record never pass the laughing test.

                                    T: See, I told you I would be wasting my time trying to give you what I
                                    think is a reasonable explanation.





                                    Kamran: First of all you have not even attempted at giving a reasonable
                                    explanation. You have simply claimed that fossil record explains evolution
                                    or vise versa. Now can you please begin by giving an explanation about how
                                    any of these two explain the other? I remind you that ToE claims life got
                                    diversified because one reformed to another, hence the appearance of the
                                    so-called trees of life. Can you explain how the fossil record shows one
                                    life form changed to another? Playing evolutionary guessing games about how
                                    one life form looks like a transition from another, not only forgets about
                                    explaining what happened to all the incomplete and dysfunctional forms in
                                    between, but also ignores that there is now verifiable evidence that the
                                    internal systems of life are not able to produce and manage such
                                    transformations from one species to another. And finally, perhaps I need to
                                    remind you that what the fossil record actually demonstrates flies in the
                                    face of the evolutionary claims, in that the fossil record gives hard
                                    evidence that all life forms remained unchanged from appearance to
                                    extinction. Moreover there is absolutely zero evidence of any evolutionary
                                    buildup or gradual transition in any of all the life forms known to exist
                                    now. The so-called evolutionary explanation about the fossil record in just
                                    a myth.



                                    ***************************************



                                    K: Evolution does not explain the fossil record, it misrepresents it. Can
                                    you show the appearance and development of any limb, or a shift from one
                                    species to another, by virtue of the fossil record?

                                    T: I cannot show it to your satisfaction.

                                    Can you get back to my question about explaining to me how the creator runs
                                    things?





                                    Kamran: Do you remember my full sentence that included the phrase; "how the
                                    creator runs things?",

                                    >
                                    > ***************************************

                                    > K: You have to deepen your thoughts and look at all the follow on
                                    implications of a ten-meter man.

                                    T: I didn't say it had to be 10 meters. I am saying that he could have been
                                    maybe 4 meters.





                                    Kamran: So you accept that either way the Creator faces rational limits.
                                    And he can't really make, or won't find it reasonable to conduct, his
                                    creation in any casual way assumed by man. In other words the Creator
                                    cannot create things and events in any which way, as humans depict in their
                                    cartoons, and at the same time pursue a rational objective for his
                                    creations.





                                    ***************************************

                                    > K: Man is an intelligent entity with far greater survivability than
                                    rhinoceros.

                                    T: Cockroaches have existed and survived a lot longer than humans. Are they
                                    intelligent entities too? I think there are some bacteria that have survived
                                    exposure to out space.





                                    Kamran: Now imagine if each cockroach or bacteria also required to put his
                                    children to school, and build urban and country houses, or ride in cars,
                                    busses and trains, or go to ski and beach resorts, etc. You are not making
                                    this discussion very productive by cutting paragraphs and taking pot shots
                                    at phrases taken out of context. You likened a rhinoceros to a ten-meter
                                    man phenomenon, and when I tried to cite some issues with your comparison,
                                    you change your reference to bacteria. I suppose next you are going to say
                                    that Creator can make a single cell bacteria with the same operational
                                    features of a human being!!!!! And my response to that will be a " no he
                                    can't." The Creator cannot deliver the operations of a human being through
                                    the structure of a single-cell bacteria. Similarly, among the things that
                                    the Creator can not do is to load the entire knowledge and developmental
                                    capacity of evolution on any single cell or any multi-cell organism.





                                    **********************************

                                    K: The human population is currently 7 billion and could be double that and
                                    more in the future. Rhinoceros don't live in buildings and sky scrapers or
                                    ride in busses and cars, men do. Rhinoceros didn't need to ride on horses
                                    for transportation, men do. If every single variable was to be drastically
                                    changed to make a ten-meter man creation possible, it is not certain that
                                    such a mathematical equation could be balanced, and also could be set up
                                    with the same purpose that the creator has for his Human creation in the
                                    current form.

                                    T: So are you saying that man, buildings, sky scrapers, busses, cars were
                                    all created at once? Or that man was created with the intention that he
                                    would have to be around 2 meters tall, because otherwise he would be too big
                                    to occupy a building or ride the bus?





                                    Kamran: What I am really saying is that the developmental path of the Human
                                    and its resource requirements are taken into account by the Creator in his
                                    creations and the administration of the system. The facilities that are
                                    invented, developed and used in human life do not come as surprises to the
                                    Creator and he set things up in such a way that we could go through this
                                    developmental path.

                                    >
                                    > *********************************
                                    >
                                    > K: I definitely don't think he can transcommunicate a human character
                                    through the neural systems of an ant or the brain of a bear.
                                    >
                                    > T: No No, the Creator would start from scratch. He would build the
                                    cockroach alien human one cell at a time. Unless you are saying the Creator
                                    constructs living organisms with fully functioning systems? So like a neural
                                    system is an IC?
                                    >

                                    > Kamran: No life form can be built one cell at a time. Every life form is a
                                    complete systemic package.
                                    >

                                    T: Well how am I supposed to know how your creator runs things when you
                                    don't tell me.

                                    So if the Creator does not assemble his life forms on cell at a time, how
                                    does he do it? He does it one gene at a time? One base pair at a time?





                                    Kamran: If you liberate your mind from all the evolutionary junk science,
                                    and spend some time on the software-hardware architecture of life forms, you
                                    will understand why these are systems that only perform with all their
                                    elements configured and matched to operate in an integrated manner. For
                                    instance, skin cells would have no role to play if there was no body/organs
                                    for them to cover and protect. Blood cells are only useful if there are
                                    organs to feed. Etc. What you can verifiably see about the integrated
                                    properties of the machines of life, would pretty much tell you how the
                                    Creator must have done it and, mathematically/rationally speaking, there are
                                    no two ways about it either, even for the Creator.

                                    > **********************************
                                    >
                                    K: ... Recognizing that the Creator is subject to certain limitations or
                                    constraints is a practical matter. Creative Causation is not a religion, so
                                    the Creator is not the proverbial God.
                                    >
                                    > T: So what you are saying is that the physical laws like gravity,
                                    molecular forces, 2LoT, are beyond the control of the Creator? The Creator
                                    is constrained by what the known physical laws will allow?
                                    >

                                    > Kamran: The Creator himself creates the physical laws but if he is to have
                                    a rational purpose for his creation, the nature of laws and processes that
                                    he can create will be rationally constrained by his purpose.




                                    T: I guess that was what meant. As long as we know what his purpose is, we
                                    know that the laws and processes of nature used for that purpose are
                                    rationally constrained.

                                    The part I don't understand is the purpose.





                                    Kamran: Well my two-cent advice is that you must first put the evolution
                                    junk science in the trash, where it belongs. Then identify the engineering
                                    features of life and its host environment. This would pretty much establish
                                    the existence of a common engineer or Creator for you. It won't be long
                                    after that which you can deduce from a careful analysis of historic, social
                                    and natural events what the methodologies and eventually the most probable
                                    purpose of the creator is. I can also tell you how I see the most likely
                                    purpose of the Creator from his creation of the physical universe and
                                    mankind, but that won't do you much good right now, and may in fact
                                    disorient you.

                                    > > > **********************************
                                    > > >
                                    > > Kamran: Rational thinking doesn't assume anything goes "in that part of
                                    the universe."
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > T: So you know for a fact that physical reality is absolutely the same in
                                    all parts of the universe? You know that time, energy, and matter behave the
                                    same in the center of the universe to the edge of the universe?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Kamran: Other than the abyss of a black hole, the physical superstructure
                                    of the rest of the universe is held together with the same natural forces.
                                    As far as the science of astronomy has looked deep into the space and
                                    analyzed relative movements and motions and light effects, there is
                                    absolutely no sign that the forces of nature are different in different
                                    locations of the universe. Very good technical explanations are also
                                    available on the subject of the uniformity of physical laws and forces in
                                    the universe.
                                    >

                                    OK No sense looking otherwise then? I hope Victor is not disappointed.

                                    Truman





                                    Kamran: If he is, he should tell me about it.

                                    __._

                                    http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3471096/grpspId=1707281911/msgId=
                                    32558/stime=1376229802





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