128
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 06:30 pm
@weslo88,
noone is stopping anyones beliefs. What science is doing , to put it in phrases that dont offend anyone, Is trying to understand "his" toolkit and recipes.

weslo88
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 07:22 pm
@farmerman,
If we are to try to understand the beginnings of evolution would we start with the primordial oceans and and the energy that sparked it with life? Energy coming from lightning? That was to cause the single cells to be created? Who in turn over millions of years evolved into multi cell creatures? One must ask where did the oceans and energy come from? My belief is God.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2020 04:13 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
trying to understand "his" toolkit and recipes.

Hope you get serious about that!
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2020 04:16 am
@weslo88,
I kind of feel ripped off in the 'faith' department, I never had the option, at least it feels that way. Evolution was so intuitively not true to me.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2020 08:52 am
@Leadfoot,
Yes Im serious. I just dont buy th premise about an "external intelligence", but I dont try to stop anyone from providing evidence. Real science is not in the business of silencing other views. Real science will listen, critique, and ridicule if needed.

I call Dr Demski a fraud because he lies on both sides. I call "Dr Ham" another fraud because he tries to build a world that has got NO vidence that it ever even existed.

My only point to you has been to remind you really have an obligation to prove or provide evidence of your worldview. All you seem to do is, like gunga, get involved in coarse criticism of subjects that I doubt whether you guys even understand . Please dont expect folks to give you a total pass just because we all went through the same steps in belief as you presently embrace. (We all have to go through our own journeys re: seeking knowledge)

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 05:22 am
@weslo88,
weslo88 wrote:

If we are to try to understand the beginnings of evolution would we start with the primordial oceans and and the energy that sparked it with life? Energy coming from lightning? That was to cause the single cells to be created? Who in turn over millions of years evolved into multi cell creatures? One must ask where did the oceans and energy come from? My belief is God.

Evolution has no beginning, because living organisms are just mechanistic systems that emerged from the interplay within the larger mechanics from which they formed.

If you look at Babbage's 'analytical engine,' it was like a complex abacus, and an abacus is a device that works similar to counting beads/shells/pebbles or making marks in the sand, etc.

So complex forms evolve through time in various ways, but you can't really say that there is a beginning to any evolutionary process because everything has antecedent causes and forms that emerged from earlier forms before they transmuted and/or combined to constitute a subsequent form.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 05:57 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Yes Im serious. I just dont buy th premise about an "external intelligence", but I dont try to stop anyone from providing evidence. Real science is not in the business of silencing other views. Real science will listen, critique, and ridicule if needed.

Umm.. You have said otherwise elsewhere.

You work pretty hard at keeping children from exposure to what you claim are dangerous ideas. Those include both intelligent design and theological ideas.

Personally, I like real science, and I’m unafraid of anyone's idea.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 08:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Youve got that a bit wrong. I do not have NY compelling rsons to disallow any packages of information given to kids. My only proviso is that w dont teach ID or Creationism as SCIENCE in SCIENCE classes.
I think Ive been very consistent in that demand.

Science is wholly dependent upon evidence, repeatability, observation, mathematical LAWS and experimenta evidence. NONE of which is possible in ID or Creationism. All e ar given is a sideways "proof" that life is too complex to have arisen without an Intelligent designer at the helm.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 03:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
life is too complex to have arisen without an Intelligent designer at the helm.

Evolution IS a process of intelligent design.

Living things are fruitful and multiply, then they sin, die, and learn from surviving sin when they don't die. Sometimes they 'learn' by being genetically adapted to survive a given 'sin.'

You have to realize that the word, 'sin,' just refers to any action that isn't totally right. So from an evolutionary perspective, every action that doesn't lead to survival and reproduction is 'sin,' and so evolution theory is really just expounding upon the fundamental Biblical logic that the wages of sin is death, and that things that don't die are fruitful and multiply.

If evolution happens because some things sin and die while others reproduce and survive another generation, then why can't that be called 'intelligent design' with God/nature as the 'designer?'
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 03:40 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Science is wholly dependent upon evidence, repeatability, observation, mathematical LAWS and experimenta evidence. NONE of which is possible in ID or Creationism.

You forgot to include 'Evolution' in that list.

I’m not saying you don’t have any evidence, but all you have is circumstantial evidence that sometimes fits your theory.

‘Circumstantial' is real evidence as long as you consider all of it. People are sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence. Dark matter and dark energy are widely believed to exist based on circumstantial evidence. I’d include the 'Multiverse' but the evidence for that is only because some don’t like the implications of there being only one. Which smacks of wacko religious thinking in my opinion. That’s not even circumstantial evidence much less the kind you say science depends on.

If you ruled out circumstantial evidence, science would progress at a very slow rate, if at all.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 03:52 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Youve got that a bit wrong. I do not have NY compelling rsons to disallow any packages of information given to kids. My only proviso is that w dont teach ID or Creationism as SCIENCE in SCIENCE classes.
I think Ive been very consistent in that demand.

How about questions? Would you allow those kids to question things in science class? Could they pose logical arguments against things like RNA world, random chance for functional protein formation, etc. in science class? Or would they be met with 'Sit down Bobby, this is no place for your sermons.'?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 06:00 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
How about questions? Would you allow those kids to question things in science class? Could they pose logical arguments against things like RNA world, random chance for functional protein formation, etc. in science class? Or would they be met with 'Sit down Bobby, this is no place for your sermons.'?

Now youre just trying to indict science education .
Id welcome all questions, but the student would have to understand something sufficiently advanced to talk intelligently about an "RNA world" > The kid would have to know what its all about, what it says, and what are the other competing HYPOTHESES.
(There are several we know that dont we??) An RNA world , as far as I know, has been a full frontal dsicussion regarding lifes origins in journals by real working scientists. It turns out that there are perhaps 8 to a dozen competing hypotheses of life's origins all within the realms of science and all implied naturalism.

When is this evidence of Intelligence going to be presented as a reasonable argument as was promised by Philp Johnson back in the early 1990s (When the DI was announced as a "scientific based" counter to implied naturalism), and, as he said then, "Wait for five years, we (the I) has lots of proof in the pipeline)
So far all we have gotten is the tired old argument that these guys keep repeating about how complexity of organisms is proof .
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 01:10 pm
@farmerman,
Figured that was coming.
That was a long version of - Don’t ask, it’s way over your head.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 02:22 pm
@Leadfoot,
Stop whining .
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 04:27 pm
I wish I could believe in ID, but it makes things incredibly, impossibly difficult to explain. I like things simple. The beauty about natural selection is that is that it is simple, and makes perfect sense.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 06:42 pm
LF wrote:
. . . all you have is circumstantial evidence that sometimes fits your theory.


Right there, with all your other crapola taken aside, you demonstrate that you don't understand how science works, or how anything, absolutely anything, qualifies as a scientific theory. If it were only sometimes that the evidence fit, that would imply that sometimes the evidence doesn't fit the theory. That's like running a stop sign with a cop parked at the side of the road. You're busted! The first time any evidence doesn't fit a theory, the theory gets ditched, and it is up to scientists to find a statement of the idea which does not get falsified. You have no business in a discussion like this.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 04:59 am
@Setanta,
I totally missed that sentence. Its a fact, if it werent for solving what circumstantial evidence represents, thered be no need for science at all.

Ive always told Leadfoot that "all evidence supports and no evidence refutes a working theory"
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 11:30 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
LF wrote:
. . . all you have is circumstantial evidence that sometimes fits your theory.

Setanta replied:
Right there, with all your other crapola taken aside, you demonstrate that you don't understand how science works, or how anything, absolutely anything, qualifies as a scientific theory. If it were only sometimes that the evidence fit, that would imply that sometimes the evidence doesn't fit the theory.

My least liked tactic in these discussions is this one.

Your answer is nothing more than pandering to your perceived audience who you assume to be ignorant of the subject, and I’m not talking about myself. The gigantic lie you are attempting to sell here is that there is not a single finding in science which calls the theory of abiogenesis/evolution into question. That is so laughable as to not require an answer. I won’t give any shrift to your bleating about the difference between abio and evo. One is nothing without the other, and science has proven neither.

How about you farmer. You going to stand with that too?
If not, you can start with explaining the mitochondria. Or are you going to try the same thing as Setanta above. You know, yer favorite line about 'That complexity story was debunked long ago.'
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 11:42 am
@Leadfoot,
No, you start your ID belief re: mitochondria since youve not listened or have purposely ignored everything Ive attempted to discuss or to have you read.
What dont you like about mitochondria in your world??.



Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 11:44 am
@Leadfoot,
I'm not pandering to anyone. I was addressing you. You were peddling a line of bullsh*t, and I called you on it. Live with it.

No matter how one accounts for the rise of life, that is a reference to there being no life, and then there being life. That's abiogenesis, no matter how you parse it. Don't tell me I'm lying when you clearly don't know how the scientific method works. Once again, you have no business in such a discussion, rookie.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/04/2020 at 03:16:11