Why do people deny evolution?

Sorry to be so abrupt in my above response response but since you incorrectly understand that the entire argument about methodological naturlism is as a basis for study, so what else can I do?? Youre dead wrong and seem to want to just make it up as you go without even questioning the very fact that you hve NO WAY of assessing what is fact or not. Your worldview is based on summary conclusions going in. SCience has no patience with that kind of "thinking". Like your compadre laughs a Lot these conclusions and hypotheses cant even be quantified, let alone repeted as experiments (cause there arent any experiments available). Even Bill Dembski tries to back off that by posing large columns of numbers that incorrectly speak of " numerical impossibilities". (no such animal in this universe)

The IDers don't seem to deny medical science, thats not in the bible. But I suppose if the bible had the words, "Then God created life to evolve into many forms" then maybe they'd accept evolution theory. I definitely don't believe that life can magically materialize out of thin air, unless you had a tele-transporter of course

so far, all evidence points to the self assembly of several key organic compounds, including but not limited to-Ammonia, Ammonium,Amine, Amide cyanic acid cyanogen, Carbon mono and dioxide, water, Phosphoric acid, iron phosphate, iron oxide and oxy- hydroxide, Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, Sulfur dioxide, methane, ethane , propane, butane,and several metals as catalysts)
None of these compounds need any interference by outside beings to react, assemble, polymerize or link by surface or covalent or valent means. Chemistry provides us with uch a simple yet important list of ingredients. If you look at RNA and DNA as assemblages of packets of simpler compunds we can nver be surprised , not that it assembled but that it took so long to realize that fact.
Its like a tractor, not too complex if you look at it systematically in wee bits

As free oxygen became more and mor available due to reduction of stuff like iron silicates in presence of H2S, we have seen the very patterns of DNA and RNA "Helices, both double and single stranded. Fossil compounds from the Mesabi and Australian banded iron formations display such helical "strings " of iron compounds. Did lif begin mulating such structures (remember we know that Archea are without mitochondria and are merely polymer "Bags of stuff covered by fatty acids of polymerized chains of methyl compounds. Fatty acids are all over with us. both from living and non living sources (like the Tropsch process in clay rich iron silicates where COs has been entrained.

Jesus went around smiting and healing, smite and heal, make some wine, gimme the seven fish, NO CARP!!.

Yup, not to mention the amino acids for protein in dna assenbled by rna. I think evolution and innovation of technology whether organic or inorganic, goes hand in hand. Someone invents a wheel, someone else invents a piston, then someone else invents a spark plug so on and so fourth then you eventually end up with tractor, I think organisms operate very much in the same way.
As for the IDers and medical science not being in the bible, maybe they just like cherry-picking science info that serves their egos rather than their rationales?

I believe I have mentioned in the past an article in The Scientific American in 1970 which I read. The article describes how long chains of organic molecules will form and replicate in tubules of smectite clays, especially montmorillonite. No spark plugs required, nor any imaginary friends. I believe you once added that glycerin spheres will form in the same environment. I would hasten to add that the origin of life is not relevant to a discussion of evolution, although the possibilities are interesting.

Here's an excellent article on evolution. https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4

That's an excellent short survey.

When you find some present under the tree on Christmas, do you assume that:

a. A bunch of goblins manufactured it and Santa Claus brought it there in person just for you, 'cause you've been such a good boy.

b. A relative or friend either made it or purchased it as a Christmas gift to you.

If you think a) is highly improbable therefore b), you're using your dreaded Methodological Naturalism.

I understand the keeping distance from the origins of life but, the chemistry of life seemed to me to be quite important in the discussion about mthodological naturalism. These IDesr sem to dwell in the kelp forest where they claim that an intelligence needs to be behind all these "complex molecules" when indeed, all the complexity can easily be broken down into packets of "bucket chemistry"
Bob Hazen has recently published several papers and books that highlight the chemical pallette that was available to life in the Hadean and Archean. In thos times there were less than 30 minerals on a cooling arth. Then, as with the 2 major "oxygenation events" in the paleoArchean through the neoArchean and secondlly through the EDiacaran, minerals began to differentiate via the mechanics pf EH.pH, and through these mechanisms, we saw the popping up of all the above proto-organic "molecular clusters" .
Some of recent research has included some relly net detailed microphotography of earliest life .(The Isua formation ofGreenland, the Banded Iron ranges of minnesaota and Australia, and Flinders Hills stratigraphy in Western Australia has been as important to paleontology and evolution as has the Burgess shale). Stuff just occured at a much simpler level, but we can see all these phenoms that wed been talking about these past 13 years are becoming visible to those who give a ****. And to think it was all being done without nuclei and mitochondria for an entire billion years.(nd these entirely different phyla still "live among us")

I predict that the discovery of the actual "type section" for the origins of life will be happening in our lives. I so look forward to what new arguments that the Creationists/IDers (as well as the science denying conspiracists) will cobble together as these studies are revealed in journals.

Irrational beliefs can’t be swayed with rational arguments. The problem isn’t that Science lacks detail, it’s that Creationists aren’t using science.

Hence we find ourselves explaining that billions of animals won’t fit on a boat, or that methodological naturalism is a fundamental part of science, and oh yeh, we use it every day just to prevent dying from stupidity.

When your POV starts off with an assertion as false as this one, there is no chance of a rational dialog.

Didn’t I just recently admit my error of accepting Methodological Naturalism as part of Science? You should be capable of the same self-correction as you claim for science.

Do you have even a single shred of logic that would support M.N. as scientific and not a prime example of the blind faith that you are properly critical of? Farmer and ros have begged off so far.

The False Alternative is a philosophical error.

You have accepted facts not in evidence, as the lawyers put it. Without making leaps of faith, all I can conclude is that there are some obviously intelligently arranged items under a tree. You can recognize that a gift wrapped package is not a natural phenomenon, right?

The mistake I would not make is thinking the gift wrapped packages assembled themselves. I do not have the kind of blind faith required to believe that.

So far in this thread, that is the case. I make rational arguments here and the only response is 'You’re a religious nutcase'. That’s very much like your next 'statement', non sequitur, dodge or whatever the **** it is.



Oh yeah, I see what it is now. Just another version of “You're a religious nutcase!”


Third verse, same as the first...

No it’s not, and you haven’t given a single supportive argument for it.


This is another version of the bullshit argument that biologists depend on Evolution everyday in their work. Ask one and unless they are working specifically on the subject of evolution itself, it does not matter one whit whether life was an accident or designed. The only relevant fact is ‘ heritability is a fact'. Nobody is arguing otherwise about that.

I understand the reluctance to let go of MN, Albert Einstein felt the same way about the expanding universe and entangled particles too. They did not fit his current view of reality and if he had not let go of it, he would have not been properly Scientific.

when one assumes that his reality i the correct one, all of ones qrguments seem rational. Otherwise youd have to admit youre wrong. Any worldview, like ID/Creationism that starts with its conclusion and avoids searching for ANY evidence, isnt using science.

But Im sure you see all this from your pole.

Clearly, your reply is just assertion and accusation.
That’s why I don’t bother debating biology with you anymore.

you say that methodological nturalism is NOT part of scientific research. Im sorry to inform you that its a cornerstone for one fairly good reason.
Ill let the Talk origins Archive pull it up .


METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS FUNDAMENTAL TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

I know from where you get your "POV" about this. I feel that you dont spend any time reading and bouncing ideas off each other from the scientific v the ID POV's.
You never give any of us credit for arguing using the Creationist/ID beliefs(like my insistance that you spend time evaluating convergent evolution or the scientific evidences for "sudden appearance". When you only accept your side without question, you limit your understanding of a subject.
I thank you guys every day because your POVs keep me looking and trying to understand the systematics mo bettah"

Like Haldanes "dilemma" and Neutral "Theory" needed close inspection and better understanding of their bases in fact. Im still looking up origins of things like bats and hymenopteran insects and seeing the transition from gymnosperm to angiosperm plants and C3 v C4 grasses. Your recent blurb about "epigenetics" nd its (as you seem to assert) problems to evolution theory and naturql selection in specific , could not be further from truth. When you think about how mutations can occur with such density and how epigenes can "communicate" with somatic cells and chromosomes, the funky "Statistical BS " that many guys like Gumpy ole Fart seem to try to cobbl, really disband in importance(sorta like Haldanes when he dicovered that gene linking and folding and methylation can occur at many many sites simultaneously, not just at one site at a time, When he was givn that basic information by geneticists, he delivered a "whoops".

It been said here over and over, science is self correcting, religion is not.
One of your fans is busy trying to find line and verse in the Bible that refers to DNA and epigenetics, I wonder how thats working out for him.

Actually I nver realized that you were "debating genetics". You seem to recite from several websites and expect folks to buy in.
Ive never begun from a poition where I assert that Im right, Im not a traind geneticist but I AM a trained organic hemist with biochem experience. I hve to chuckle at how you deny that pre bio chemicals and radicals like those I posted above, simply can link, react, share bonds and grow via esterification or various kinds of linkages. Youve consistently denied that this is possible (Which really shows a profound lack of learning on your part).
Whil Miller and Urey were incorrect in their assumptions of proto archan atmospehers and environments, their result, when viewed by todays advanced spectrographic means, reveals that they relly were on the right track

Add Cyanide to water with Hydrogen sulfide Iron sulfide and wet-ethane and then zap it all in a negative Eh, acidic pH, and you can actually create AMINO ACIDS. You dont think all those radicals and molecules couldn't exist together in the HAdean world??

See, paleo biochemistry can prove the existence of the reducing ( and wet gaseous) HAdean atmosphere and its environments . The chemicals have existed in matrix for several BILLION years.

However, theres no way in hell we can look for or find an IDer. (Thats where the MN comes to the fore)

Whether you care to debate me or not I GAF. Ill just inert a fact whenever you post some of the stuff you did about n IDer who plopped fossils around so wed find em and this was part of his overall plan.
You have to provide the evidence about this hypothesis, if there is none or can not be dicovered, then it NOT SCIENCE--simple

The point which you apparently missed is that it's generally a safe bet to assume some natural cause for the stuff that happens in life.

Do you believe in Santa Claus, and if not why not?

. How can they use science? The begin and end with a creator with nothing in between. They still haven't produced evidence of their creator and they never will. It's that invisible persona out there someplace that listens to the prayers of humans all around the world all at once. Probably over a million prayers every minute of every day. If "he" doesn't have a hearing problem, there are a whole slew of other problems that would drive anybody insane. Please do this for me, please do this for my family, please do this for the world...thank you for listening to my prayers.