Re: West Virginia creationism

jillery wrote:

On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:24:11 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

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.

  Once again you ignore the point; your word is no more "honest and
descriptive" than is Maycock's word.  That makes your objection above
just more mindless noise.
 

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.

  Based on your expressed comments, my impression is you never had a
reasonable understanding of biological evolution or the evidence for
it.
 

It's so easy to make such unjustified charges and accusations with a wit of evidence to back up this assault on me personally. This is your weapon of choice against people who hold different views from yours.

 

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.

  Really?  Then perhaps you will finally deal with the oft-repeated
point regarding the lack of precambrian rabbits:
 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit>

 >
No one claim there was. There were no complex animals before there were complex animals that first appeared during the Cambrian. This, no doubt, demonstrates the absence of your questioning of evolution, now or ever. Gullibility is not good  and not a virtue.

 

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.

  Since you regularly handwave away anyone, including myself, who
disagrees with you, with irrelevant epithets like "atheist" and
"Darwinist", that you complain about other's hostility is just as
ironic as your complaint about other's ignorance.
 

We are going to have to agree to disagree and respect the other's point of view.

 

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

  Once again you ignore the point; "new" by itself doesn't describe
valid pathways, and instead better describes shooting in the dark aka
random.

 >
New pathways should always follow observation. You can observe nothing in the dark, nor did random actions ever result in anything other than desolation and disorder.

 And since you mention Occam, explain how baselessly invoking an unseen
and unknown purposeful Designer, who is itself necessarily complex,
explains the origin of complexity.
 

There is absolutely nothing simpler, or easier than attribution of design to deliberate and purposeful designer. There is nothing as pressing as surviving and reproduction. But why would a blind, hapless purposeless, careless and mindless universe instill the impetuous to reproduce to all life from the earliest and simplest organisms to the most complex life forms. Chemicals just slashing around in a early ocean or some remote little pond have no care nothing wanting. Even if my some
chance early primitive life form accidentally forms what implanted the drive to divide or reproduce?
Think about sea turtles they lay hundreds of eggs buried in sand and leave the scene. She doesn't
know or care about her offspring, so what is the impetuous to reproduce or rather why? I think this was implanted onto all life. I do not think nature cared or had the desire for reproduction.  Which is
another example suggesting a designer that did care.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge