Article <la6a4iFqqmbU1@mid.individual.net>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<la6a4iFqqmbU1@mid.individual.net>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:11:07 +0200
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 260
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <la6a4iFqqmbU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <utjrbi$2susg$1@dont-email.me> <ebfrvidkrucpm7kv4bctsnrgksg8hjn3go@4ax.com> <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com> <rcpd1jtljvngh3g3s7455lun0ukjlrqoeb@4ax.com> <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com> <folk1jhbg7o63c0spnibf1j72jeb6tcllc@4ax.com> <lafv1jp2fv47for3jusorqcmncfk1d9142@4ax.com> <dsbc2jhon7ontdokugvdfg6tedrqnkntq4@4ax.com> <n7jd2j1lamelgiq69tvlih4mh708alb8d7@4ax.com> <3n8m2jtvhd0nahms2un4i2gjbt1t6bpbk2@4ax.com> <ajsi3jdfqcr5095itvlrddnskb56h8ihd2@4ax.com> <q8fj3j5pou54cmk3r73aeirgp4gi8im5qv@4ax.com> <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com> <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com> <b0a6b3fd5d8e2f856b679be8a5abac97@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="40816"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.individual.net
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gEoW5FtfKvHxJ+uIQlm4FkIneQU= sha256:cf9vkZYazCj+TMpI7lq2f6FH/5m6VI+WJNRv7+2inXI=
Bytes: 16719

On 2024-05-10 08:22:49 +0000, Burkhard said:

> Ron Dean wrote:
> 
>> Vincent Haycock wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:47:15 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 23:53:05 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but
>>>>>>>>>> honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No, there's nothing to explain away.  There will always be crackpots
>>>>>>>>> amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educated
>>>>>>>> with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what
>>>>>>>> are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including
>>>>>>>> scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, a PhD is not a license to believe in nonsense, although some
>>>>>>> people act like it is.  You've made the error of argument from
>>>>>>> authority here, since even PhDs can easily get things wrong.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You called them crackpots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So do you believe that crackpots exist, or are all claims to
>>>>> scientific validity  equally worthwhile, in your view??
>>>>> 
>>>> Of course crackpots exist. However, calling them crackpots because they
>>>> offer a different point-of-view from one's own view is protective and
>>>> self-serving.
>>> 
>>> I call them crackpots because they're out of step with mainstream
>>> science without adequate grounds to be that way -- not because they
>>> offer a different point of view from my own.
>>> 
>>>>>> This is they way any contrary evidence to
>>>>>> scientific theories IE evolution or abiogenesis is dismissed without
>>>>>> knowing or understanding anything about the case they bring against
>>>>>> evolution. When one relies strictly on on sided information and based on
>>>>>> this, they are in no position to pass judgement. It's exactly parallel
>>>>>> to a case where the Judge hears the prosecution, then pronounces I've
>>>>>> heard enough - _guilty_! I strongly suspect this describes you knowing
>>>>>> nothing about actual ID or the information
>>>>> 
>>>>> Okay, why don't you fill me in about what I'm "missing" in the field
>>>>> of information science as it relates to Intelligent Design?
>>>>> 
>>>> I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or the
>>>> case against evolution and especially the impossibility
>>> 
>>> You don't know that.
>>> 
>>>> of life from inorganic, dead chemistry. There are over 500 known amino acids
>>>> know in nature, but all living organisms are made up of only 20 
>>>> different amino acids.
>>>> What what was the odds of this happening without deliberate choice?
>>> 
>>> It's just the number of amino acids that happened to be in the
>>> earliest genetic code, obviously.  If there were 25 amino acids in
>>> living things, you'd ask the same question.
>>> 
>>>> And all are
>>>> left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
>>>> and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have
>>>> been right-hand.
>>> 
>>> This was probably the result of a "frozen accident," where the
>>> earliest life forms were left-handed by chance, and all their
>>> descendants were also as a result of that.
>>> 
>>>> This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
>>>> process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino
>>>> acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
>>>> but no 0ne knows.
>>> 
>>> So you agree that Intelligent Design is not known to be the answer to
>>> these kind of questions?
>>> 
>>>> Each protein is expressed by a particular order or
>>>> arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a
>>>> Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
>>>> acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
>>>> The number would be greater than the number of atoms (10^80) in the
>>>> known universe. What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
>>>> proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids.
>>> 
>>> Obviously, the proteins didn't poof into existence all at once. You
>>> would start out with something that only vaguely resembles the protein
>>> you're concerned with, and then natural selection will turn it into
>>> that protein over time by removing what doesn't resemble the target
>>> protein and retaining what does.
>>> 
>>>>>> What do you  offered by IDest pointing put
>>>>>> the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think you know
>>>>>> anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No,  I used to be a creationist and I'm quite familiar with their
>>>>> arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>> Really? What turned you against both creationism or intelligent design?
>>> 
>>> I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
>>> paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
>> Around the same time,
>>> I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>> So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found 
>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of 
>> negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
>>> The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing about
>> either the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that 
>> matter. ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as 
>> evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design
>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est 
>> interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm. IOW the 
>> paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see 
>> evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points 
>> to the identity of the designer. One may believe based upon faith the 
>> the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha  or some other Deity but this 
>> is belief
>>> 
>>>> At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was
>>>> challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also
>>>> thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
>>>> discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a
>>>> coincidence.
>>> 
>>> How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did
>>> into the subject?  If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
>>> would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
>>> supporting evidence to support his ideas.
>>> 
>>>> There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature.  Darwin was a
>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10.  This naturally
>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
>>>> religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
>>>> on the loss of his daughter.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========