Re: West Virginia creationism

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.

 

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 of the origin 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?  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 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. 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.

 

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?
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.
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.

 

True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.