Why do people deny evolution?

@InfraBlue,

'Information' doesn't come from anywhere. It is a set of observer selected data which allows the observer to choose between competing courses of action (including inaction). 'Intelligence' is the capacity to decide between alternatives (aka 'the capacity to delay a response') . Intelligent organisms engaged in mutual goal orientated tasks tend to exchange what we call 'information' in the process of co-ordination. The theist argument that they are 'communing with the will of an intelligent creator' is mere wish fulfilling anthropocentrism which ignores the obvious lack of intelligence indicated by the criminal wastage of 'the creation process'. i.e Their selction of their 'informational' data set is blatantly arbitrary and biased.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Leadfoot said: 2. Information comes only from intelligent sources.

You said:
This is an assumption of yours.

Yes, an assumption based on a lifetime of observation and analysis. I also assume gravity and a hundred other laws to be in effect at all times for the same reason.

Quote:

By theory of ID I'm referring to how this IDer came up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan.

You really expect me to show you how the designer went about doing all this? I have only said that I recognize design when I see it, not that I could have done it myself.

But I do think about how ingenious it had to be in order to design this paradigm of software defined life forms used to both terraform the planet and the same mechanisms to house consciousness, whatever that is. We don't even know how to explain how it is we come to contemplate your question. Or the ones that inevitably follow on from it. But holy **** would I like to one day be able to tell you.

Quote:

You continually pussyfoot around the question along with the question of the statistical probability of your IDer being behind the hundreds of new proteins for a new animal body plan.

Oh, is that what you want. Sorry, I misunderstood, because I thought there was no reason for you to ask that
.
If what I think is true, (that information comes only from intelligent sources), then why would my answer be anything other than - 100%?
If you can convince me that comparable true information comes from anywhere else, it would be less.

But if you really understand what a protein is and how it is made, it is not possible to think anything but 'Design'. And that implies intelligence behind it. Biologists know this and feel forced to repeatedly say it 'gives the appearance of design' so that the 'ignorant public' will not get any foolish ideas about a designer. It's funny listening to them do that after awhile.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

If you can't explain then the mods must have deleted it. That means someone reported your post, and the mods deleted it because it was outside the T&Cs.

Take it from someone who knows, if you get too many of them you'll be suspended. Ease off a bit.

There was more to it than that. I woke up the night after writing that after having a dream that I deleted that post. I thought maybe that meant I should, but I decided against it since I am generally opposed to taking back anything I say unless my opinion has changed. It can be a way of weaseling out of your own words if you do it for other reasons.

My meaning in telling him to 'go **** himself' after saying that I was 'fibbing' was that he might as well go ****, have intercourse, talk to - himself rather than with anyone if that's what he thinks of their truthfulness. But I did think it could be misunderstood.

So anyway, the next day when I picked up the thread I was surprised to see that post gone. Probably the Mods, but that's why I said IDK. Maybe I was sleepwalking and did it myself.

As for possibly of being banned, sometimes that would be a relief.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's not really a good idea to repeat the language that got deleted in the first place.

If it's all getting a bit much why not step back a bit? You won't be viewed as a failure because you can't change anyone's mind. Let's face it most people's minds on this thread are pretty much made up already.

Isn't there a bit in the Bible that says to brush the dust off your shoes on the places that don't make you welcome and move on?

Or, if you feel like you're banging your head against a wall, stop. You're not hurting the wall.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I'll take my chances.

Besides, you'd miss me too much if I changed

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It could have happened accidently as well. Im sure mods dont delete a post from someone saying to another to go "**** yourself". It is a kind of throwing up your hands a bit . I never even gave a reference to it so had you just kept your peace it wouldnt even be a bother to anyone. So what??

We disagree, so whenever you post a thread that starts with a conclusion and then appears to use some point in science to back it up, I should also be given the similar space to draft up what I can from some of the literature.

Im especially impatient when readers , who depend on the accuracy of their sources to substantiate their points, post belief and not incontrovertible facts, their conclusions are not factual either. I dont think you should blame me for enlightening you on what the literature actually says about that subject. I mean all youre doing is insulting the messenger not the message . You should write to Steve Myers and have him explain where hes coming from.
You say you have a "scientific interest" in ID, yet all you do is pull up some well crafted , and fully unsubstantiated position statement that is clearly written to underpin ID no matter what the facts are.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There are others I would miss one heck of a lot more.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We disagree, so whenever you post a thread that starts with a conclusion and then appears to use some point in science to back it up, I should also be given the similar space to draft up what I can from some of the literature.

I didn't object to you using any source you want. Use away. I was criticizing your source's 'facts' (like de novo proteins). Is that not allowed? Are you going to stand behind your source?

Quote:

Im especially impatient when readers , who depend on the accuracy of their sources to substantiate their points, post belief

Everything is a belief. I assume you mean 'religious belief'. I can't avoid tangential references to religion (as do you) but I have not used them to support my case. If you think otherwise, please cite example.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The theist argument that they are 'communing with the will of an intelligent creator' is mere wish fulfilling anthropocentrism which ignores the obvious lack of intelligence indicated by the criminal wastage of 'the creation process'. i.e Their selction of their 'informational' data set is blatantly arbitrary and biased.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the criminal wastage of 'the creation process'." Are you referring to their own mortality?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Leadfoot said: 2. Information comes only from intelligent sources.

You said:
This is an assumption of yours.

Yes, an assumption based on a lifetime of observation and analysis. I also assume gravity and a hundred other laws to be in effect at all times for the same reason.

You're confusing your assumption of an IDer having come up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan with the assumption that physical laws exist. Wouldn't your IDer have created these laws as well?

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
By theory of ID I'm referring to how this IDer came up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan.

You really expect me to show you how the designer went about doing all this? I have only said that I recognize design when I see it, not that I could have done it myself.

But I do think about how ingenious it had to be in order to design this paradigm of software defined life forms used to both terraform the planet and the same mechanisms to house consciousness, whatever that is. We don't even know how to explain how it is we come to contemplate your question. Or the ones that inevitably follow on from it. But holy **** would I like to one day be able to tell you.

Then your theory isn't a theory of how the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan arise. Merely, you waive it off as "an IDer did it" with narry an explanation of how. Your "theory" isn't actually an alternative to Evolution which does try to explain how the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan arise.

It's similar to saying "the sky is blue because the IDer did it."

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You continually pussyfoot around the question along with the question of the statistical probability of your IDer being behind the hundreds of new proteins for a new animal body plan.

Oh, is that what you want. Sorry, I misunderstood, because I thought there was no reason for you to ask that
.
If what I think is true, (that information comes only from intelligent sources), then why would my answer be anything other than - 100%?
If you can convince me that comparable true information comes from anywhere else, it would be less.

This is still another assumption. You're accepting as a given the probability that an IDer came up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan while, conversely, negating the probability of Evolution.

Leadfood wrote:

But if you really understand what a protein is and how it is made, it is not possible to think anything but 'Design'. And that implies intelligence behind it.

This is yet another assumption based on question begging and leaps of logic.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I didn't object to you using any source you want. Use away. I was criticizing your source's 'facts' (like de novo proteins). Is that not allowed? Are you going to stand behind your source?

I think that talking with you is lik ping pong. You keep trying to change your style.
Last week you ere making bets that theres no information regarding New proteins

Then you start using Steve Meyers interpretations of ORFan proteins

Now youre back saying new proteins ARENT PRODUCED ????

Im only human, I really wanna understand where you think your coming from.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

No, I'm refering to the ridiculous ascribing of 'intelligence'to the mythical entity which theists maintain is responsible for 'creation', with all its false starts and botched products.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Leadfoot said:
Yes, an assumption based on a lifetime of observation and analysis. I also assume gravity and a hundred other laws to be in effect at all times for the same reason.

InfraBlue replied:
You're confusing your assumption of an IDer having come up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan with the assumption that physical laws exist.

No, I'm using the same logical process to access the validity of both. But if you are heading into one of those woo-woo discussions where you assert that we can't really know that any laws exist, I'm not on board that bus.

Quote:

Wouldn't your IDer have created these laws as well?

Might have, but the cosmological argument is a different realm than Bio, so that does not automatically follow from that discussion. But again, the process would be the same, and that was my point. Worth looking at though.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Leadfoot said:
Yes, an assumption based on a lifetime of observation and analysis. I also assume gravity and a hundred other laws to be in effect at all times for the same reason.

InfraBlue replied:
You're confusing your assumption of an IDer having come up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan with the assumption that physical laws exist.

No, I'm using the same logical process to access the validity of both. But if you are heading into one of those woo-woo discussions where you assert that we can't really know that any laws exist, I'm not on board that bus.

No. I was commenting on what you assert are your assumptions.

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Wouldn't your IDer have created these laws as well?

Might have, but the cosmological argument is a different realm than Bio, so that does not automatically follow from that discussion. But again, the process would be the same, and that was my point. Worth looking at though.

The process being "an IDer did it." Right?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thank you for clarifying.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

No. I was commenting on what you assert are your assumptions.

No, you were asserting that my assumptions were assumptions. And I agreed with you. Go back and read it.

Now, if you wish to critique my assumptions, go right ahead. And I guarantee you that you will have to make many assumptions in doing so. And I will not criticize you for using assumptions, but I might take issue with some of them. Again, I invite you to take issue with mine.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:’If what I think is true, (that information comes only from intelligent sources), then why would my answer be anything other than - 100%?
If you can convince me that comparable true information comes from anywhere else, it would be less.’

Yep. We can be 100% certain on that one huh?!

0 Replies

http://assets.amuniversal.com/125336701b55013784e9005056a9545d

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
No. I was commenting on what you assert are your assumptions.

No, you were asserting that my assumptions were assumptions. And I agreed with you. Go back and read it.

I'm clarifying what I wrote. No, I wasn't asserting that your assumptions were assumptions.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I'm clarifying what I wrote. No, I wasn't asserting that your assumptions were assumptions.

like a job as Press Secretary at the White House ?

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know