Article <QCv%N.3420$ba_5.1143@fx46.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<QCv%N.3420$ba_5.1143@fx46.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!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 16:40:15 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 327
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <QCv%N.3420$ba_5.1143@fx46.iad>
References: <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$lwqa.97359@fx18.iad>
 <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com>
 <c_P_N.74962$Y79f.10441@fx16.iad>
 <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com>
 <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
 <b0a6b3fd5d8e2f856b679be8a5abac97@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="55771"; 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: <b0a6b3fd5d8e2f856b679be8a5abac97@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 19530

Burkhard wrote:
> 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.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========