Article <yVt%N.21046$cjh6.19355@fx48.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<yVt%N.21046$cjh6.19355@fx48.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 129
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <yVt%N.21046$cjh6.19355@fx48.iad>
References: <n7jd2j1lamelgiq69tvlih4mh708alb8d7@4ax.com>
 <FtDWN.112651$moa7.28881@fx18.iad>
 <3n8m2jtvhd0nahms2un4i2gjbt1t6bpbk2@4ax.com>
 <uca_N.78951$TyYf.63711@fx15.iad>
 <ajsi3jdfqcr5095itvlrddnskb56h8ihd2@4ax.com>
 <CAh_N.50541$P_e7.43732@fx09.iad>
 <q8fj3j5pou54cmk3r73aeirgp4gi8im5qv@4ax.com>
 <UIB_N.97515$lwqa.97359@fx18.iad>
 <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com>
 <c_P_N.74962$Y79f.10441@fx16.iad>
 <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com>
 <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
 <u1tq3jh8l2ng3kunvsol4bmlf13o5c58i9@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="53043"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <u1tq3jh8l2ng3kunvsol4bmlf13o5c58i9@4ax.com>
Bytes: 8635

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Vincent Haycock wrote:
> <snip>
>>> 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.
> 
> No, that's backward. 
 >
That's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You 
became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
 >
  I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
> Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution and
> non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping
> stone to atheism per se).  And of course, as I said, I found negative
> evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it
> was cartoon-like.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for
> me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
> Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
> subscribed to.
 >
ID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in
> phylogenetic studies of living things?
 >
This is an example of interpretation to fit into a 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.
> 
> Do you think you might be able to identify him/her/it if you tried
> harder, scientifically?
> 
>> 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.
>>>
>>> What's your explanation for why Annie had to die?  Is it better than
>>> my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
>>> in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
>>> died)
>>>
>> Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others  much
>> younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
>> or a disease which caused her death.
> 
> But why would God allow that?  I consider this to be positive evidence
> in favor of atheism.
 >
And so did Darwin. Why would you think that the designer should be an on 
scene manager constantly controlling everything minute by minute. The 
fact is, it did not, instead it chose to permit reproduction by 
organisms themselves rather than create each species individualy. It 
designed the genetic code and the information needed, as well a multiple 
edit and repair machines to correct copy errors and mutations in the 
DNA. It infused almost all of the first complex modern complex animal 
phyla during the Cambrian. It created a universe beginning with then big 
bang, a universe of natural order, patterns and logic, evidenced by the 
fact that mathematics is able to describe this universe it's physical 
laws, constants many of the actions we observe Indeed Math cam explain 
what is observed. This is not a condition of blind, aimless mindless 
random activities.
 >
>> I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
>> devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended
>>from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine 
>> and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other animals. So,
>> as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any
>> other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
>> standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a
>> YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog,
>> that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"?
>> As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their
>> dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value
>> than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the
>> human race.
<
No comment! I'm not surprised.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
>>>>>> ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.
>>>>>
>>>
>