Article <0ab%N.50735$P_e7.43763@fx09.iad>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <0ab%N.50735$P_e7.43763@fx09.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<0ab%N.50735$P_e7.43763@fx09.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!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: Thu, 9 May 2024 17:24:11 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 74
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <0ab%N.50735$P_e7.43763@fx09.iad>
References: <lafv1jp2fv47for3jusorqcmncfk1d9142@4ax.com>
 <IA3UN.953$9pR2.722@fx13.iad> <dsbc2jhon7ontdokugvdfg6tedrqnkntq4@4ax.com>
 <%AzVN.19359$8tL7.11884@fx09.iad>
 <n7jd2j1lamelgiq69tvlih4mh708alb8d7@4ax.com>
 <FtDWN.112651$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>
 <p29m3j5osh6j9m04788up6290qlmu8mhpp@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="18967"; 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: <p29m3j5osh6j9m04788up6290qlmu8mhpp@4ax.com>
Bytes: 5717

jillery 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.
> 
> You called them deserters.  How is that honest?
 >
It was honest and descriptive. But maybe a bad choice of a word.
> 
> 
>> 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 offered by IDest pointing put
>> the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think yoy know
>> anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution.
> 
> 
> For you to accuse others of ignorance is remarkably ironic.
 >
False, I been exactly where you are: I knew and understood the empirical 
evidence supporting evolution. But not very much which is contrary to 
evolution, In fact, I thought there was nothing "against" evolution. I 
accepted Darwinism without doubt. Do you or have you questioned 
evolution's claims or examine contrary evidence? If so, what? Please 
spell out some of your questions and how you resolved them? I would 
really like to Know.
 >
Although you and I don't often agree,  you have been one of the lesser 
hostile respondents and I  do appreciate this as well as your comments.

> 
> 
>> True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
>> ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.
> 
> Taking random pathways doesn't advance science.
 >
Not random, but rather new pathways. The first principle of science is 
observation, so new pathways should follow observation. Find hypotheses, 
theories explanation for what is observed test and repeat. And remember 
Occam's law
> 
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>