Why do people deny evolution?

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Why do people deny evolution?

Based upon the video gunga poted, I saw lots of fraud, and out and out lying by that crazy looking guy who was preaching about "soft tissue means young aged fossil"

1.First off NOONE has ever found any DNA in a Dinosaur fossil

2The soft tissue was mostly lined with heam molecules which were all found deep within the rock matrix (and had to be dissolved out in HF)

3The rock matrices ALL dated out at 66 and 88 my bp

4"We all know about protein decay". I believe what Thompon found was a new means of fossilization in the presence of free iron.

The radio guy made up so much bullshit and paraded it as truth that he oughta be brought up on charges . Guys a loon and a liar.

5. C14 in dinosaur bones has been severely debunked by the very labs in which the samples were run. Now, other labs, less concerned with fact and evidence are playing with the same stuff and, by virtue of sample contamination , show whole ranges of C14 data (They cant even hold down and show a statistical center for their "samples"

6. There should be a radionuclide "forensics" lab that can pass review and QA over som of these fraudulent samples.

Gunga is either incredibly ignorant or is part of the entire "C14 hoax" in which hes pushing 20K year old dinosaurs. Weve got 20000 year old soil horizons, where are the dinosaur fossils in those horizons?? How come we only find the fossils of concern netly concreted within rocks that routinely show that they are Cretaceous age ?? These fossils have to be Jackhammered out nd then the fossils removed by months and years of carefully separating the bone from the rock matrix using Dremels and Foredom High speed carving tools.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Heres a hort clip of a paleontologist at MNH who is prepping a couple fossils. Note please that the fossils are always deep within the rocks and need to be cleaned oo the fossil bone is revealed. So, separating the age of the rock from the age of the fossil is kinda the way work is done. How would you get a 20K "fossil" inside a cememt matrix thats been carefuly dated and reveals ages like 66 Million yers?

SOmebody;s lying.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Gunga is either incredibly ignorant or is part of the entire "C14 hoax" in which hes pushing 20K year old dinosaurs.

I've lost count of the amount of times you've proved Gunga wrong, and the number of times he's gone away for a bit only to come back with the same bullshit. He has no excuse to be ignorant, so it's wilful.

He believes a nonsensical view of creation based on scripture and nothing else. He's in denial so desperately clings to any scrap of evidence that confirms his delusions, the crazier and less scientific the better.

He's also in denial about the Srebrenica massacre and constantly posts Serbian lies and right wing propaganda about all sorts of stuff.

He has an agenda, and he's only interested in pursuing that agenda, Awkward things like facts and truth get in the way of that agenda. That's why he posts so much bullshit in the vain hope we'll be swamped with so much of the crap.

I have a rule of thumb that everything Gungasnake says is a lie, and I'm pretty sure that's true at least 90% of the time.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I always marvel at the host of vry well made films of the propaganda behind his worldview. Somebody's gotta be paying for that, but the way its presented, it does a neat job trying to sound believable.

Lota times these film makers count on scientists not being very good communicators or who will lack patience with their opponent (both are kisses of death)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I believe that he is convinced regarding his "front loaded chemistry" idea. After all, the mechanism isnt really disparate from what Ive been saying concerning the simple reactions that govern how amino acids react and link.

Now don't go falsely quoting me. I've only agreed to the possibility of 'front loaded information'. You are the one with the 'magic chemistry set' that you say created life without intelligence but can't demonstrate it experimentally, even with.

I wish you knew at least a little computer tech so you could appreciate the analogy your description automatically brings up:

Calling the activity in any living organism 'simple reactions of amino acids' is like saying the activity in a computer is the simple flow of electrons according to basic electrical laws.

Quote:

The only problem he cannot resolve(or xplain) is this (among other things),
"if life is a product of intelligent design, what then is ones hypothesis about the role of, say, extinction of species?? After all,of all life that ever was, 99.99999% is extinct.

Good grief farmer, couldn't you wait at least a few posts before demonstrating my complaint to ros? You pretend we haven't discussed this several times before. But hell, I'm working on patience, so I'll say it again.

If there was an intelligence behind the existence of our human species as it exists today, it would have no doubt foreseen that the fossil fuels that have enabled our development would be necessary. They would not be here if those long extinct species had not preceded us. As you well know, evolution can have no foresight but intelligence can. So did you see this coming?

Had you actually forgotten that conversation? Or was it a ploy to get me to say 'Godidit' or something?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you should stop referring to your position as "ID", since that's kind of a Trademark at this point.

I will leave it up to you to come up with a better name for your position, since I would probably call it something like "Uselessly Pedantic Philosophical Obfuscation" or something like that

We've been around this block before, but both farmer and you treat these discussion as if every day is a fresh start, that we've never encountered each other before, that you have no idea what my background and general knowledge about the subject is. I don't know if that's really how you see it or are just pretending for the sake of the silent peanut gallery.

But you kind of give away your position at the very end there.

That last little bit was just to yank your chain a bit. It contains a bit of truth about your arguments, but it was mostly just to get you going Smile

But you are right, we've been through all this many times before. I find your arguments deeply philosophically flawed and fraught with logical errors. And you find that I just don't get it. So here we are.

I think if you weren't constantly trying to find ways to prop up the objective validity of that "Talking to God" event you had in your life you would be reaching very different conclusions to all of your own arguments. But we'll never know.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I wish you knew at least a little computer tech so you could appreciate the analogy your description automatically brings up:

and your disdain for trying to better understand chemistry makes me think of the carpenter whose only tool is a hammer so he sees all problems as a nail.
Chemistry needs no additional inputs to produce entire families of polymers or reduzates . They really dont require a lab.

Quote:

Calling the activity in any living organism 'simple reactions of amino acids' is like saying the activity in a computer is the simple flow of electrons according to basic electrical laws.

The main beauty of chemical reactions (all kinds) is that the products can be the results of lines of these reactions within specific environments and white the methods of linkage are very few, the results can be widely different.
I know that qeve discussed the relationship of extinction (at least I have) Youve seemed to avoid any answers of any substance, like this for example

Quote:

Good grief farmer, couldn't you wait at least a few posts before demonstrating my complaint to ros? You pretend we haven't discussed this several times before. But hell, I'm working on patience, so I'll say it again.

If there was an intelligence behind the existence of our human species as it exists today, it would have no doubt foreseen that the fossil fuels that have enabled our development would be necessary. They would not be here if those long extinct species had not preceded us. As you well know, evolution can have no foresight but intelligence can. So did you see this coming?

Im sorry but I find this quite vacuous a response. "Evolution can have no foresight but intelligence can". So you are saying that the IDer has made the existence of fossil fuels based on a product that it was getting ready to produce. A product that would be needing fuel oil and coal to cause a worldwide problem of pollution and climate change? Was this intelligence also responsible for the Continental Drift that caused the giant inland seas that housed the host rock for petroleum and the swamps associated with drainage areas of mountain ranges that were necessary for coal measures??

Your IDer is one busy guy wh "knows all", and(as you assert) plans for all contingencies .
I think Ive said this to you before"I hear ya LF , I just dont buy any of it". Youve gotta first start breaking down what natures history was about and how stuff got here, before you try to "lump everything" as an algorithm.
I Know its popular to use the term algorithm when teaching kids about natural history, I just say its dead wrong because , as Ive seen so far, you dont seem to be in the possession of anything that constitutes hard, believble evidence ,you seem to avoid the really tough questions suchas what about extinction , or mathematical relationships between species numbers and varieties, or how about biogeographical speciation . Also, youve totally avoided the relationships among the changing world environments with the forms and durations of life herein.

I see youve abandoned your recent references to Karl Woese, why is that?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Now don't go falsely quoting me. I've only agreed to the possibility of 'front loaded information

You are the one who brought it up, not me. Chemistry IS often magic ( I think It was Arthur C. Clark who sated that any reasonably advanced technology closely approximates magic), thats why we study their workings in-depth. The magic goes away when we begin to understand how, say, polymerization can continue to work and how replicating polymers can be produced in certain environments of speciifc liquid and Eh/pH condition. As R Hazen has shown, we can trace the formation of more complex minerals through time nd how they become self-propagating.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I agree with you, particularly about chemistry - a subject I found particularly challenging in grad school.

I'm reading a fascinating book by a British Physicist (Charles Cockell) called "The Equations of Life" in which he illustrates how the laws of physics themselves can explain the mechanics of evolution and Darwin's "Natural Selection" (in which proto species live long enough to reproduce in sufficient numbers. It is, among other things a fascinating study of how large scale order can emerge from unpredictable complexity in the small.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You have not answered the question of whether or not you are allegedly an American.

I am an American. I have a job as a project manager. Sometimes that leaves me very little time to edit what I write.

Quote:

One thing has not changed, certainly. You still make statements from authority without providing any reason to consider you an authority. Upon what basis do you allege that science requires a philosophical interpretation?

Sorry I think some things are a given. So read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics corresponds to reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments, there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation. These views differ on such fundamental questions as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or random, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and what is the nature of measurement, among other matters.

Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached amongst physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best represents reality.

And then lets discuss this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

I would suggest that all of these philosophical interpretations fall under one or more of the following:

Objective Idealism, Subjective Idealism, Naive Realism and Naturalism.

I think the most accurate interpretation will be a comprehensive interpretation that includes all 4 of those philosophical interpretations.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

So you are saying that the IDer has made the existence of fossil fuels based on a product that it was getting ready to produce. A product that would be needing fuel oil and coal to cause a worldwide problem of pollution and climate change?

Uh, yes, that is the hypothesis. Why do you think I refer to it as intelligent design? And why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Fossil fuels have enabled the 'product' to spread in numbers that would have been impossible without it. It also enabled us to develop technology to replace them with sustainable substitutes. (just in time it seems!) Try developing solar or atomic power without the industrial progress that fossil fuels made possible.

But where the **** do you get off of saying I have 'disdain for chemistry'? Just because I don't believe it can make life happen by accident? Got any hard evidence for that?
Learning molecular biology is how I got started on ID. They sure ain't talk'n about it in church, at least not forty or so years ago the last time I went.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

1. The precedence this sets in stifling debate (in academia and the community in general) over an issue that historically was a central reason to the founding of our nation and the constitution.It hardly "stifles anything" because colleges still offer courses in th "history o science" where subjects as this are discussed.Here we are in a public forum hving this debate and I know several TV shows that , taking the Creationist side, will present arguments for their POVs.

This is not a history of science debate. It is a philosophical interpretation debate that (as I pointed out to Sentana) requires the use of Objective Idealism, Subjective Idealism, Naive Realism and Naturalism.

Objective Idealism is outlawed as a legitimate part of the philosophical interpretation of scientific data by Judge Jones. I don't believe that is necessary or correct in a nation that has a constitutionally guarenteed right to freedom of expression.

Quote:

And as far as the reason the US Constitution was so written was that the wording was PRECISELY chosen regarding the two clauses that are contained within the first Amendment. There is the "Free Expression clause" which protects everyones selection of worship ,

If it was to protect freedom of worship it would have said "worship". Expression is different than worship. For example, by reading Leadfoots comments I can't tell if he goes to church or does any other form of "worship". He appears to have a firm belief, (that is based on a philosphically sound interpretation of the science), that there is a Designer. I would expect he "expresses" that belief in how he lives his entire life (including day to day issues including the education children and people in general in being productive and civil citizens). I on the other hand have chose to express myself in a more religious way. You on the other hand have chose to be equally religious as Leadfoot. but the difference between Leadfoot and I compared to you is, you have determined (with the help of Judge Jones) to eliminate Objective Idealism as a legitmate philosophical interpretation of physics and reality. I don't think any Philosophical interpretation should be eliminated from the debate or the educational system.

Do you think Objective Idealism should be eliminated as a legitimate philosophical view in science and the public school system?

Quote:

and then there is the "Establishment clause which lays out the Constitution;s prohibition against the government establishing a "State Religion">(In the cases of Aguillard and Kitzmiller, the courts decreed that teaching ID and Cretion "Science" are equally religious based forms of"Science", and they are both unique to specifc denominations, the state shall NOT endorse the policy of ID or Cretion "Science" Since both are outgrowths of a more literal basis of Fundamental Christianity. >(I

I would suggest that by outlawing Objective Idealism as a possible philosophical view that can be used in science and education, you are pretty much establishing Subjective Idealism and Naturalism as the state established philosophical views and only that view can be "expressed" in science and education.. And, since Subjective Idealism implies subjecting one's philosophical point of view to an objective point of view, (which would be the philosophical view of the author of the information) it puts grave restrictions on that point of view, since the potential author cannot be discussed.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

(In the cases of Aguillard and Kitzmiller, the courts decreed that teaching ID and Cretion "Science" are equally religious based forms of"Science", and they are both unique to specifc denominations, the state shall NOT endorse the policy of ID or Cretion "Science" Since both are outgrowths of a more literal basis of Fundamental Christianity.

What specific denominations are they? I would suggest a muslim or Panthiest could use a similar point of view using Objective Idealism to logically support their own view of God/god as the author. Whose God or gods fits the characteristics could be covered in history class.

Sure would make people think though wouldn't it? Isn't that what we want?

Quote:

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Discussing all possibilities is not establishing. Prohibiting discussion of one possibility is prohibited (as stated in the above quote).

I am not afraid of the debate at all levels. Are you?

Quote:

It was a totally dumb move but left a reasonable mind with the idea that these guys ere not being totally honest in their belief system

I think they were being totally honest and Jones didn't think they had a right to be.

That quote from the Second amendment said nothing about the federal government deciding what a local community thinks is stupid or not.

[quoteI think its a pretty good list of freedoms but apparently many people (Including the Cretionists and IDers) seem to feel that they should be given special consideration in showcasing their beliefs.][/quote]

Nope, just equal consideration.

And I don't "feel" I deserve it, I know I deserve it because the quote from the Second Amendment says I am constitutionally guaranteed that right.

Quote:

As set said, IDers have all the rights of anyone else , just not the right to preach their belief under protection of law that governs our public schools. As you see, this is still a much argued interpretation of a right and I hope the more right leaning USSC does NOT cave in its social rulings.

I don't want to preach, I want to discuss science using Objective Idealism as a possible interpretation of the data.

Is that too much to ask?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

If you truly are an American (which, in fact, I doubt), then your poor English is even more appalling.

We are discussing evolution, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is theorized to take place on a scale so small that we don't have the means to measure the quanta. No such limitation applies to the study of species and speciation. You're peddling bullsh*t again, which seems to be the only arrows in your quiver.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Discussing all possibilities is not establishing

True, but thats not what they were doing. The two cases were trying to TEACH science from their religious worldview. Am I clear on that??

Teching a subject that is based on a specific worldview is an always will be in violation o the establishment clause.

Reading the rest of your post makes me just want to do a face palm and say OY, "clues you seem to be without". You really dont get it or else youre just trying to be funny. Which is it??

1. LOCAL COMMUNITIES do NOT set Constitutional limits. Even state Constitutions must follow that of the US

2.

Quote:

I am not afraid of the debate at all levels. Are you

totally not the point. Its about establishing a religion, not debating science

3.

Quote:

Nope, just equal consideration.

You have equal protection. You can start a prochial school nd disallow Darwinian or Lamarkian evolution , genetics, paleo, geo sciences, nuke physics, etc etc. And you can do this all you wish. YOU JUST CANT DO IT IN A SECULAR SCHOOL SYSTEM (which is what our public school systems are supposed to be, do you get it??)

4.

Quote:

Is that too much to ask?

Yes it is, Youve just made up the term "Objective Idealism" and it sounds like its hiding a religious base, and you think youre being a smart ass by making up silly titles for something on which youve amply blown your cover.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

We are discussing evolution, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is theorized to take place on a scale so small that we don't have the means to measure the quanta. No such limitation applies to the study of species and speciation. You're peddling bullsh*t again, which seems to be the only arrows in your quiver

Wrong conclusions come from refusing to ask the right questions. The universe gets much more complex at the quantum level. Imagine even more complexity at level that is not even visible to us. How can such complexity come about I wonder? From a Big Bang? The interior of neutron stars? Where do neutron stars come from?

So many questions that need to be answered before you can proclaim thee is no intelligence behind the complexity.

Here are some examples of scientists asking some of those very questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

Quote:

History
Quantum biology is an emerging field; most of the current research is theoretical and subject to questions that require further experimentation. Though the field has only recently received an influx of attention, it has been conceptualized by physicists all throughout the 20th century. Early pioneers of quantum physics saw applications of quantum mechanics in biological problems. Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book What is Life? discussed applications of quantum mechanics in biology.[5] Schrödinger introduced the idea of an "aperiodic crystal" that contained genetic information in its configuration of covalent chemical bonds. He further suggested that mutations are introduced by "quantum leaps". Other pioneers Niels Bohr, Pascual Jordan, and Max Delbruck argued that the quantum idea of complementarity was fundamental to the life sciences.[6] In 1963, Per-Olov Löwdin published proton tunneling as another mechanism for DNA mutation. In his paper, he stated that there is a new field of study called "quantum biology".[7]

Atoms and molecules act the way they do because of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_al_khalili_how_quantum_biology_might_explain_life_s_biggest_questions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_of_quantum_evolution

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

What a maroon. You're trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim--that there is an intelligence in play. No one has to prove there isn't, and you haven't proven there is. You lay out your unsupported assumptions, and they try to suggest that others have to disprove them.

Bullshit

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Atoms and molecules act the way they do because of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.

Nope, they got it all very very wrong! Qm is bullshit to it's core!
But that is a whole other subject by itself.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Youre just trying to confuse the diiscussion since most chemical reactions that involve Q tunneling in electron transfer, photolyis, etc etc, are already understood within the rules of quantum chemistry.
Try to stay within the subject ,QM is a series of governing reaction modes, not some trivial effects that may not even be occurring within organisms.
To date, in one of my references that even discuss it, was where it was playfully described as "The only effects visible within the world of animals or plants is Schroedinger's cat"

1 Reply

@ Brian
It's just amazing how some people tell you to believe science and scientists, then just as casually, tell you to ignore it.

It's a case of - Your science bad, their science good.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know