Article <U92dnasPeoxdxKD7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<U92dnasPeoxdxKD7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!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: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 16:18:24 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 182
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <U92dnasPeoxdxKD7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
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$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="21795"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
Bytes: 12101

On 5/9/24 3:51 PM, 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========