Re: West Virginia creationism

On Mon, 13 May 2024 00:32:27 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

And again you ignore this point.  Why is that?

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.

Once again you invoke your convenient amnesia.  Others and I over the
years have regularly and repeatedly backed up your expressed lack of
understanding of evolution with documented evidence.

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.

Willful stupidity is not a virtue either.  Once again you ignore the
point; the existence during the precambrian of organisms as complex as
rabbits would be strong evidence against evolution and common descent.
OTOH the extant existence of rabbits is evidence that they required
much time for their evolutionary development by unguided processes,
and that your presumptive purposeful designer is either 1. unconcerned
about designing rabbits, or 2. remarkably unintelligent about doing
it.  Pick your poison.

 

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.

Invoking irrelevant epithets is strong evidence of your lack of
respect for others.  More to the point, our differing points of view
isn't the issue here.  Instead, the relevant issue is your repeated
failure to understand what you're talking about.

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.

Once again you ignore the point; new pathways usually don't follow
observation, precisely because they're new and not yet tested. 

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.

I agree it's easy for you to mindlessly *imagine* a purposeful entity
capable of designing and creating life; such is the appeal of ID.
What's much harder for you is to *identify* what would be required of
such an entity to exist, which you repeatedly refuse to do.

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.

Your questions above demonstrate your lack of comprehension.  Things
that don't reproduce themselves tend to get used by things that do.
That mindless fact by itself explains why the latter increase at the
expense of the former.  Adding mindless competition and mutation
necessarily results in evolving things with the *impetus* to
reproduce; no intelligence required. 

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