124
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2019 08:49 am
@farmerman,
H&G ----" THE BIBLE SAYS, the world had to be created because there is a timeline showing the birthdays of the patriarchs"

And This is falsifiable and testable.

ME-----"How do you test it nd falsify this?"


H&G---'BECAUSE IT SEZ SO IN THE BIBLE"





Rather circular eh??
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2019 10:08 am
@farmerman,
Yes, that would be circular.

Oh, the sinful mind of mankind! So many false Gods( including the time and chance god of evolutionism)

Life from non-life. Design from no designer. Not one example, or demonstration.
Oh farmerman, take care. Ttysoon

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2019 10:09 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Your entire worldview is based on life being too complex to have been arrived at by its own devices.
Not that I agree with you about what my world view is based on, but you dismiss complexity too breezily.

I mean, at what level do you say - WTF, that is no accident. If I follow your way of thinking, I must ignore not only common sense but mathematics. And yes, you can point to Quantum Mechanics which would say anything is possible (given enough time), it would say that if I waited long enough this computer would assemble itself from rocks but you know that argument is one that nobody would buy. But you claim that approach works with evolution and people buy it. Amazing.

I've already conceeded defeat on whether it was possible to convince a knowledgable person who embraced Neo Evolution and its precursor
Abiogenesis, that it was flawed using only scientific arguments.

What surprised me was how difficult it was to concentrate the arguments on objective grounds. It's like an analog of Dark Energy which repels the two sides of the argument or quantum particles that can't be looked at without changing the argument to something else.

The only unanswered question is what accounts for this.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2019 11:12 am
@Leadfoot,
So math exists in a void? Mathematics owes its being to discovery of natures rules (mostly in phyics). Thats why we usually cite Physics as the mother of all the analytical sciences.

The question asked hrein is why people deny evolution. A belief system nbased upon complexity may be OK, but it is still just hnging there as a proposition without any technical support. WHY NOT??

My feeling is that "cause there aint any technical support "(experiment, discovery, testability, and expected results in falsifiability ).

I know youre not like H&G, but theres still that huge gap of the above 4. NOONE has yet achieved anything. Look at what the Discovery Institute fellows have promised waay back in 2003 but still have not delivered anything.
Im willing to wait

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 07:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
My feeling is that "cause there aint any technical support "(experiment, discovery, testability, and expected results in falsifiability ).

I've run out of ways to say this - ID is not competing with science. ID as I understand it, accepts all the evidence that scientists have uncovered. I have not disputed any scientific fact that you have introduced, only your conclusions about them.

ID simply comes to a different conclusion from the same evidence that you are looking at.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 10:59 am
@Leadfoot,
IF ITS NOT compting with science, why the **** are the clowns at the Discovery Institute making believe that they are a "research" organization and thius convincing the mor conservative state govts to
try to have ID taught as an alternative to evolution, So far their evidence is mtirely assertion and promises, such as

"life can easily be seen to be too complex....yatta yattta yatta" (Phil Johnson 1989)

"Intelligent Design "theory" will soon be producing papers and peer reviewed research results that will show with compelling evidence, the probability that life was created through the intercession of a universal intelligence." (paraphrased after DISCOVERY INSTITUTE WEDGE DOCUMENT 2003)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 11:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
ID simply comes to a different conclusion from the same evidence that you are looking at
LAZINESS at the max. You say that because
1 You have no way to even test your beliefs in ID , using scientific evidence and trying to fit it on the checkerboqrd, seems to me, that it MUST come to the same conclusions as methodological naturalistic evidence.
WHY??

2. Whenever you draw upon a piece of stand alone evidence you fail to conjoin it with all the other evidence that usually denies you your beliefs. Such as island speciation or extreme local adaptive radiation .
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 02:11 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
ID simply comes to a different conclusion from the same evidence that you are looking at.
Your "ID" is not everyone's "ID". If my idea of a DOG is more like a Purple Hamster, then I need to come up with a better name for my idea, or nobody will be able to communicate with me when I talk about DOGS. Come on. We've been over this before.
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 04:07 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Your "ID" is not everyone's "ID". If my idea of a DOG is more like a Purple Hamster, then I need to come up with a better name for my idea, or nobody will be able to communicate with me when I talk about DOGS. Come on. We've been over this before.


Hmmm nice one! isn't DOG spelled GOD backwards! Wink
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 05:28 pm
@rosborne979,
Yep, we have been over the ID tag before.

I told you you can call it anything you like. Personally, I think the term ‘Intelligent Design’ is the most descriptive name for the theory I have been discussing.
If you are unable to engage individuals who don’t subscribe to a particular groupthink that you want to lump them in, that is your limitation, not mine.

BTW, even the ID of the Discovery Institute does not resemble the lies that farmer has repeated over and over. They do not advocate teaching ID in public schools and did not even at the time of the K v Dover trial.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 05:47 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
2. Whenever you draw upon a piece of stand alone evidence you fail to conjoin it with all the other evidence that usually denies you your beliefs. Such as island speciation or extreme local adaptive radiation .

An intelligent designer who didnt allow for local condition variation and adaptation would not be very intelligent, now would he. As said earlier, the evidence does not ‘deny my belief’, ID is fully compatible with the evidence, as long as you dont conflate ID with religion.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 05:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
They do not advocate teaching ID in public schools and did not even at the time of the K v Dover trial.
Sounds like youve been buying their BULLSHIT. Of course they want ID as a part of science curricula in Public chool. Are you as dim as Quahog?

I assume youve even rad the Wedge Document and have just forgot it content on education in secondary schools.
Youve been arguing one wy then another in your saga of trying to think about how you fit into their "science".

ou jut sound a bot frustrated because youve got no way to seperate your "scientistic assertions" from their overall plans to restore our culture that has been "destroyed by this"THEORY".

If anyones attempting to spread BS its not me sir. You just keep painting your self into corners of your own construction.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 09:00 pm
@farmerman,
The one thing that may be confusing Leadfoot when he states what th Discovery Institute(DI) does NOT wish to do, is that DI carefully edits its propoganda to appear somewhat non "bandwagoniish" about its desires to incorporate Intel Design into science education, is that DI "dresses up its works in the camo of "Educational Freedom" or "Critical Thinking" or even "teacher Certification" and it quietly supports and funds action groups that work to push anti science legislation most recently in states like texas and kansas.
Heres a clip from a review of DI's Mission as of 2016

Quote:
American Center for Transforming Education: Updates from Washington and Oklahoma
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE JANUARY 13, 2016 EDUCATION
Discovery Institute recently launched its newest program, the American Center for Transforming Education (ACTE), to target one of the nation’s highest priority public policy objectives: improving the performance of the U.S. education system. ACTE blends a focus on increasing parental choice and empowerment with the complementary objectives of reforming certification for teachers and administrators and strengthening teacher preparation programs.

ACTE’s work is rooted in the philosophy that the education of the child is a fundamental responsibility of the family. All families, regardless of socioeconomic status, should be able to access the school that they believe will best serve their children. A ZIP code should not be the determining factor in what education a child will be able to receive.

In Washington state, the ACTE has actively supported a reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision to declare charter schools unconstitutional. Through our Facebook page, we’ve launched a social media campaign to educate citizens and policy makers about the importance of charter schools in the state. As a result of this effort, we’ve been able to reach over 345,000 people with this message. Our strategy includes a focused outreach to policymakers—including legislators, their staff, and judges—which has generated 4,600 “engagements” (a measure which includes likes, clicks, shares, and comments), with a response rate of 70%. This show of public interest in charter schools is vital to spur legislative action that would reverse the Court’s decision in 2016.

In 2016, the ACTE is excited to be partnering with local like-minded organizations, Oklahoma Council on Public Policy and Choice Matter, to expand school choice within their state. After an intensive process of research and analysis, we’ve identified Oklahoma as a state that is ripe with potential for reforms, and hope to have many positive developments to report throughout the year. Our work in Oklahoma will be modeled after that of the American Center for School Choice—an organization that is newly merged with the ACTE. The American Center for School Choice has seen previous success in Florida, where, in 2014, they were successful in working with local groups for the formation of the Florida Interfaith Coalition for School Choice. This resulted in 80,000 Florida children receiving scholarships to private schools! We are already well on our way to seeing similar progress made in Oklahoma, and have begun the process of building a faith-based coalition that will educate policymakers about the importance of providing Oklahoma parents with more education options for their children. You will hear more details as they emerge in early 2016 and the Oklahoma legislature begins its session in February.

Going forward, ACTE will continue to identify states that are poised for certification and teacher preparation reform, and develop partnerships We want to encourage and assist local groups seeking to improve the quality and training of people in our education system, which continues to be a critical element for delivering consistently better academic outcomes for American students.

Search
CATEGORIES
Artificial Intelligence
Cascadia
Citizen Leadership
Discovery Institute
Economics
Education
Foreign Policy
Human Exceptionalism
Intelligent Design
Academic Freedom
Faith & Science
Research & Analysis
Religion and Civic Life
Technology
Uncategorized
TOPICS
Theres a bit more but we can see that DI IS NOT SILENT on what its proposing . Trnsforming Education , to me, implies some kind of "partnership" or activism in a desired goal. Then use some good "code language" to sound like its all for the good of the red white and blue.










izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 03:44 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

ID as I understand it, accepts all the evidence that scientists have uncovered. I have not disputed any scientific fact that you have introduced, only your conclusions about them.


You might want to tell that to your fellow iders on this thread. Why don't you take issue with them when they come up with a load of claptrap about young earth and literal interpretation of the Bible?

All you ever do is attack FM and give idiots like Quahog and HelloGoodbye a free pass.

In short you're being disingenuous, if not downright sneaky and dishonest.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 07:45 am
@Leadfoot,
You have an extreme case of self imposed selective blindness. Good luck with that.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 11:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Of course they want ID as a part of science curricula in Public chool.
Your demand that everyone take your opinion of what is in the mind of other people, in spite of what they say is rather tiresome and makes arguing a waste of time.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 11:49 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You might want to tell that to your fellow iders on this thread. Why don't you take issue with them when they come up with a load of claptrap about young earth and literal interpretation of the Bible?

All you ever do is attack FM and give idiots like Quahog and HelloGoodbye a free pass.

In short you're being disingenuous, if not downright sneaky and dishonest.

I would think it would be obvious but it is not my responsibility to dictate what others say or believe or correct their understanding of science. I speak only for myself and I assume others are doing the same.

The stereotyping as 'Religious Fundamentalists' or 'young earth Creationists' of anyone who believes that life was a result of intelligent design is an invalid argument. The two are not necessarily related and to insist that they are IS disingenuous, if not downright sneaky and dishonest.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 11:50 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
You have an extreme case of self imposed selective blindness. Good luck with that.

Thanks, same to ya!
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 12:02 pm
@farmerman,
So DI is in favor of school choice, what of it?
Are you saying School choice is wrong?

They clearly say that deciding on where and how educating children should primarily be determined by their parents.

I agree. The idea that the state should have that role is unacceptable to me. But that is what we have today in the US, unless you happen to have the spare cash on hand in addition to the money they took in school taxes. And you apparently like it that way. You join a long line of totalitarians who think that way, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2019 12:03 pm
@Leadfoot,
You don't speak for yourself. You speak for ID as do the others, and you all seem to have different understandings of what that is. Maybe you need to sort it out amongst yourselves. The scientific community on the other hand seems to be of pretty much the same conclusion.

I'm not stereotyping anyone. Have you read HelloGoodbye's nonsense?

If you genuinely want to set yourself apart from the more fundamentalist posters you need to challenge them as much as you do FM. Seriously.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 07:35:31