Re: West Virginia creationism

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