132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sat 18 Aug, 2018 03:10 pm
@farmerman,
I simply lack enough faith in that happening and I can’t fake it.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Sat 18 Aug, 2018 05:42 pm
@Leadfoot,
Your Quote:
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.
That is the best example of I.D. that I have ever come across Leadfoot, you truely are very sharp in your judgement.
I do agree with I.D. but not the fundamentalist view where they totally rule out that things can evolve at all. But I'm a little unsure if they totally dispute things evolving, or whether they just dispute various aspects and ideas of evolutionists who disbelieve in a primer mover or God, which makes them suspectible to thinking that they are God themselves.
I do believe that God created all life including how life evolves. But I think my view of God is different from fundamentalists who give the impression of an unrealistic magical genie type God which is too childish for'me. I go along with Lord Jesus's definition of God, being "spirit" and "of the Father."
Because I do agree that it is the spirit that drives the physical mind, not the other way around.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 18 Aug, 2018 11:06 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I simply lack enough faith in that happening and I can’t fake it.


See how your requirement for "Faith foremost " totally drives your thinking?.Since EVIDENCE to the contrary is unconvincing to you, your belief seems to totally reside from a supernatural causation driving all of our planet's (and probably the whole universe') affairs . Can you give me your idea about what constitutes this supernatural causative force?

Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 10:20 am
@farmerman,
Setanta wrote the proper reply, he just 'mistakenly' sent it to me instead of you. So I will quote him for my reply to you.

Quote:
Apparently, you don't pay attention. I've already pointed out the distinction between educated faith and blind faith,


Everyone lives by faith. To believe otherwise is delusional.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 10:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Can you give me your idea about what constitutes this supernatural causative force?

Based on the theory of ID, I have no idea of whatever else constitutes that causative force. It can only be deduced that it has the same kind of intelligence that we do, only much more of it. That is the only thing that the theory tells us about it. Anything else is a product of our own inductive or deductive reasoning.

We can talk theology but I usually do that only on request. Different subject though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 10:59 am
@Leadfoot,
Nature is not intelligence. It has no brain. It's "natural." That's the reason why we have natural disasters like floods, fires, and earthquakes.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 11:01 am
@Amoh5,
Quote:
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
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.”

That is the best example of I.D. that I have ever come across Leadfoot, you truely are very sharp in your judgement.

I do agree with I.D. but not the fundamentalist view where they totally rule out that things can evolve at all. But I'm a little unsure if they totally dispute things evolving, or whether they just dispute various aspects and ideas of evolutionists who disbelieve in a primer mover or God, which makes them suspectible to thinking that they are God themselves.

Thank you Amoh, that is the essence of ID. It is simple enough for a child to grasp and yet deep enough for a scientist to appreciate.

The ability to adapt is part of the genius of the design. Whether the coded information for all eventual life was encoded from day one or worked with as time went on I can’t say. If the whale actually evolved from a small land animal I’d say that it was a dead Bang giveaway of intelligent design either way.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 11:07 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Nature is not intelligence. It has no brain. It's "natural." That's the reason why we have natural disasters like floods, fires, and earthquakes.

Exactly my point CI. Nature has no brain, no intelligence. It is ruled by the law of entropy, it gets more disorganized all the time. Nature makes things fall apart, it is the epitome of destruction and death. Clearly, life is not part of 'Nature'. It defies nature, it moves in the opposite direction of nature.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 12:12 pm
@Leadfoot,
you really cannot ascribe "theory" to the supernatural, which ID clearly is.

I disagree that nature has "no inherent intelligence", (if by intelligence you accept that chemicalsystems react same or similarly despite conditions extra to the system)

In other words something like our beloved prateins are assembled at the pH of LIVING cells by peptide , dipeptide, tripeptide(ad naus.) bonds which react as the two active residual ends of the amino acis=ds and proteins expel two water molcules (per end) in a planar structure under resonance. The amino acids in effect at the time of selection nd formation, really matter not.

Contruction of the amino acids are more complex in time lines . As Ive been told, life may have already existed and needed the kick of NITROGEN to go to the next step. ALL of RNA/DNA molecules (left or right handed, machen nichts) merely need Nitrogen to form the purine/pyrimidine rings)
ALL THESE results in creation of hydrogn bonds which are the stronegst bond in lifes chemistry set. It comes at a cost however, because as soon as life terminates, oxidation completely changes th Eh/pH and the H bond decays (thus initiating apoptic entropy).
The intelligence you seek may be nothing more than the way stuff reacts.
Your biggest hurdle(I believe) is overcoming the "origin" of the Living State". Im equally baffled (and Ive not got the skills to do anything but read about the work going on at several research centers) but, with scientific method in hand (based entirely on MN) , I believe we can unravel that mystery and render it understandable and possibly you will understand what biological science and evo/devo has been all about.

Our first opportunities may come from our space programs wherein e can see life at different stages of development.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 01:24 pm
@farmerman,
Nature allows many things to survive, but I'm not sure it's intelligence.
I like to think it acclimates to the environment.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Its how we define "intelligence". When we press ID up to the wall, many will accept that laws like physical constants nd reaction modes for chem are an inhrent property that could be called natural intelligence. Theres no way we can prove or disprove that theres some massive brain behind it all.

To accept that there is, kind of negates the value of discoveries on thir own, thats the realm of the supernatural.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 02:34 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
To accept that there is [an intelligent creator], kind of negates the value of discoveries on thir own, thats the realm of the supernatural.

To feel that way is the realm of super inflated ego.

But seriously, why would it negate the accomplishments?
Why would being educated be of no value just because everything you learned was known by someone else already?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 02:56 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Its how we define "intelligence". When we press ID up to the wall, many will accept that laws like physical constants nd reaction modes for chem are an inhrent property that could be called natural intelligence.

To accept that there is, [An intelligent designer] kind of negates the value of discoveries on thir own

It’s funny how our views are mirror images.

You see ID as undermining the value of human intellect.
I see your view of 'intelligence' as dimenishing it to a chemical reaction.
But then you actually do, too!
How deliciously ironic!
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 04:27 pm
@Leadfoot,
splain what you just said so I can pick up the irony too.

s I told you may many months ago, the "living state" acts AGAINST entropy. And it all boils down to ph. Life can be described s an alkaline reaction and non life trends to the acidic
"Diminishing life" to a MERE chemica reaction speaks loudly about how much more homework you need to do to understand the ranges and chains of these "mere" reactions.

No insult intended but Id highly reccomend acquiring copies of the "...for Dummies" series in biochem and organic chem nd moleculr chem (Im sure there are many of these covers).
They are highly readible an are updted frequently as new information becomes available. I bought one on CRSPR when ,after 15 years, was boiled down to a sense where I could understnd from a biochem leading to a genetic basis.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 05:14 pm
@farmerman,
Ah come on, it wasn’t all that subtle although there were two levels to it.
You make me look like I’m mansplaining.
Allow me to paraphrase for brevity.

You said accepting ID feels like it negates our intellectual accomplishments.
But then you equated intelligence to inevitable chemical reactions, which is only expected from your POV.
So the question that naturally follows (for me at least): If our thoughts are only inevitable chemical reactions, what is being negated by the idea of an intelligent designer?

TL/DR: You don’t have any intellectual accomplishments to be proud of if they are only inevitable chemical reactions.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 05:50 pm
@Leadfoot,
ID only means something as an entire phrase.

Intelligence does NOT automatically imply forward planning, Intelligent Design does.


farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 05:53 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
You don’t have any intellectual accomplishments to be proud of if they are only inevitable chemical reactions.
So youre still thinking its an entity, something alive in its own realm and feeling emotions ?


The Ancient Aliens Guys are on another channel
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 07:31 pm
@farmerman,
Another channel? Another world. Wink
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 08:12 pm
A long but very interesting article on the subject. It won’t settle the ID vs Evolution debate but it shows how wrong the Darwinian 'Tree of Life' picture is.
Will bring you up to speed on the HGT (horizontal gene transfer) scene. Fascinating story about the guy behind it and why most don’t know his name or anything about him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/magazine/evolution-gene-microbiology.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Setanta
 
  0  
Sun 19 Aug, 2018 08:55 pm
It really cracks me up how terms like "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are so common among the creationist/ID crowd. How eager they are to pick at a scab and say Darwin was wrong about this or that. I guess they assume that for those who consider evolutionary theory to be the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth is a dedication to Darwin personally--as though he were Jesus to those who accept evolution. Lord Jesus and all that crapola is for religionists--despite the blather of the creationist/ID crowd, accepting that as the most plausible explanation for life's diversity is not a religion.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:51:49