Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

@cicerone imposter,

he has his earplugs in and his ID Goggles on. He wont debate, he recites his "beliefs " evidence -free, but states that we dont present anything for him to consider.
What a liar is he.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The issue then, Leadfoot, is how you would ever resolve the differences of faith between you and other believers of different faiths, or how to resolve the differences between your beliefs and facts that have been verified through scientific method.

In argument with a person who holds different faith beliefs than you, neither will have more than unverifiable positions to present. In argument with those drawing conclusions from scientific analysis, you again have no verifiable argument, and can only hope to influence the scientist to ignore the data, try to cast doubt on the significance of the data, or criticize the data for not addressing a point that was not part of the intended design of a study.

The scientist will present what the data suggest. The methodology, and yes, the number of times that a given finding was repeated, will add strength to the interpretation; but you, again, will just be left with your assertions; which will hold no more weight than another person's assertions. But if what you say about the value you give to repeatability is really true, then I think the number of independently repeated and verified findings of evolution has been more than enough to satisfy whatever reasonable doubt could possibly exist. To ignore the data is just further evidence that the phenomenon of ignoring data in favor of belief is a naturally occurring one, and one that is highly resistant to reason.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

PS, earlier you said you were born in 1947 , today , you say you were born 8 years later. So were you lying then or ARE you lying now?

Farmer, your emotions are getting to you. I said:

Quote:

I have told you when I started (~ age 7) and only recently (61 years later) reached some conclusions. That's 'early in the process'??.

Do the ******* math...

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

But if what you say about the value you give to repeatability is really true, then I think the number of independently repeated and verified findings of evolution has been more than enough to satisfy whatever reasonable doubt could possibly exist.

Brian, are you pretending that our conversation did not drift far away from the OP? We were discussing whether thought affected experience. I find that subject more interesting but if you don't, that's OK.

Don't pretend that we were just talking about evolution.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

sorry misread it. I always thought with your naive outlook that you were a kid.Therefore youre just a liar about your way that you seem to try to "invoke science" to underpin your beliefs.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If I use the same methods in self examination as other scientific inquiries, why shouldn't I elevate the results to the same level?

This, for me, is a bit too abstract to make sense of. Do you have an example of independent and dependent measures in your self examination? What experimental strategies and tactics were used? What threats to internal validity were addressed? Did you submit your findings to peer-review by scientists with expertise in the subject matter and scientific practice? With the aforementioned questions addressed adequately, then, hypothetically, it is possible to draw an equivalence. Have you actually done this?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"If I use the same methods in self examination as other scientific inquiries, why shouldn't I elevate the results to the same level? "

This, for me, is a bit too abstract to make sense of. Do you have an example of independent and dependent measures in your self examination? What experimental strategies and tactics were used? What threats to internal validity were addressed? Did you submit your findings to peer-review by scientists with expertise in the subject matter and scientific practice? With the aforementioned questions addressed adequately, then, hypothetically, it is possible to draw an equivalence. Have you actually done this?

I've already answered that affirmatively several times in several ways. To ask it yet again is just a left handed way of repeating farmerman's accusation: 'I'm a liar.'

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Don't pretend that we were just talking about evolution.

I don't think I've pretended this. The discussion is tied to creation, intelligent design, evolution, etc. It's a question that could be taken as one of fact or opinion.

I do also hold the view that evolution serves as a model for human behavior; which includes language and thoughts. And I also see parallels in argument against this; namely that there is a devine or mystical force that began and guides these processes. The challenge is always the same. What is the evidence? The answer is always the same: Belief, faith, and unanswered questions being the open door to justify the beliefs.

When pressed to address contradictions in beliefs, the response is often vituperative, or a reframing of the contradiction by addressing a point that was not made.

I appreciate that at least you do not seem to be making arguments just to be a contrarian. You have been consistent in the presentation of your belief system.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I've already answered that affirmatively several times in several ways. To ask it yet again is just a left handed way of repeating farmerman's accusation: 'I'm a liar.'

You may "think" that youve answered this line but really you usually only pose an answer by dismissing the questions . Its an interesting methodology of sustaining your argument.

When I presented the FACT that science has discovered several synthetic means by which prebiotic chemicals that youve ascribed to a"designer" are formed and concentrated, you poo poo'd it out of hand. Also when we discussed, that its been shown how nucleic acids and ribonucleic acids can be linked and catlyzed by chemicals present in submarine volcanic vents, you stated that you didnt have time for these kinds of arguments. Then, its been discovered that earliest cell walls were fossilized as isoprene chains (showing preferred C isotopes ) you did a , sort of "shut up wit dat".
All these and many more levels of data have been discovered about early life and possible mechanisms, you just say youve read em and dismissed them but you havent explained how or what insights take you there).
Link that with the way that life seemed to have sputtered to shaky start in 3 separate events (showing that chemistry has a unique focus toard self assembly of molecules), of that you tried (unsuccswssfully ) to make a joke ith Lamont.
All the explanations that science has been able to cobble together, you seem to dismiss and then claim that youve arrived at a counter argument based upon a "scientific method".
I say that, if you ever ran into the scientific method you wouldnt know what to do with it .
Im afraid that youd be one of those folks whod believe you have the right to teach your dogma as science for the curricula in public schools. Its interesting that even the Catholic parochial school systems in the mid Atlantic states do NOT teach Creationism or ID as science in their schools and they would actually have a full right to do so. They, the entire religion, has concluded that the mountains of evidence are too high to "continue todeny" (Pope Francis said that in public)

Youve consistently implied that your position was arrived at via the strength of evidence and conviction (Id say its more like 100% conviction and 0% evidence ) .

Im not denying your right to believe as you do, just do not claim that its on an equal standing as conclusions based upon actual scientific evidence, and dont you dare claim that youve provided 'The lions share of evidence". Youve been consistently assertive on only one point and that has been asserted totally evidence-free.

As you notice, my past conciliatory position with you has been totally abandoned. Ive arrived at my own conclusion that youre just another close minded zealot that needs some" childlike story" to explain what you dont want to take time to understand.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

When I presented the FACT that science has discovered several synthetic means by which prebiotic chemicals that youve ascribed to a"designer" are formed and concentrated, you poo poo'd it out of hand. Also when we discussed, that its been shown how nucleic acids and ribonucleic acids can be linked and catlyzed by chemicals present in submarine volcanic vents, you stated that you didnt have time for these kinds of arguments. Then, its been discovered that earliest cell walls were fossilized as isoprene chains (showing preferred C isotopes ) you did a , sort of "shut up wit dat".

I think you have me confused with someone else. To answer this question (again) which BTW is not the one I was discussing in this thread. But my answer was nothing like what you just falsely accused me of.
(which give credence to the idea that people charge others with the thing they are guilty of).

The answer I actually gave you (several times) was this:

Yes, all those things you cited are true. All the ingredients for DNA are plausible in nature and they can even link up under conditions found in nature. But that happens in RANDOM order. What science has NOT shown is the plausibility of those chains linking up in any of the necessary order to form even the simplest self replicating organism (or molecule) able to pass along traits for evolution to act on.

I went on to show the mathematical improbability of that happening but won't bore everyone here by repeating that argument again.

I've given you every benefit of the doubt so far but if you bring this up again I'm gonna just copy & past this same post again. Your arguments have proven unworthy of more keystrokes.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I went on to show the mathematical improbability of that happening but won't bore everyone here by repeating that argument again.

Actually you didn't show any mathematical improbability other than an instance of 1 possibility. You have failed to address the issue that there would likely be an infinite number of molecules that could be self replicating.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Science HAs shown the "linking" of specific purines and pyrimidines into nucleic acids, and the associated peptide linkages ND floding of the molecules by hyrdrolyses and methylation. Also , in the pre living earth, its been shown that carbonyl sulfide (COS) do.
the same as what biotic chemicals like RNA do.

Your "mathematics" are called "desired outcome based", where a single outcome, to which everything is defaulted, is based solely upon an "improbability" of a competing series of events(when you are less than competent to discuss even a partial spectrum of these events). Thats totally bogus .
And yes you have been denying all that others have said and you hd poo pood and dismissed much of what Id said because of your desired outcome.
Dont duck and cover.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"I went on to show the mathematical improbability of that happening but won't bore everyone here by repeating that argument again."

Actually you didn't show any mathematical improbability other than an instance of 1 possibility. You have failed to address the issue that there would likely be an infinite number of molecules that could be self replicating.

You are getting as repetitive as farmerman.

Yes I did address that. The number for 1 chance, as I recall, was 1 in 2.3 x 10 ^506. When you made your argument that there could be many others I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said OK, lets say there are 10^50 possibilities (that's about the number of atoms in the earth BTW). So using that figure, that makes it 1 chance in 2.3 x 10^456 for any of those 10^50 possibilities occurring.

Note that 2.3 x 10^456 is more than the number of atoms in the known UNIVERSE.

Edit: I should point out that this overstates the actual chances because I had to reduce the minimum number of nucleotides by 2/3 because my computer could not deal with numbers as high as the actual result when a more realistic molecular complexity was used.

I'll save this to cut & past the next time you repeat this false charge of 'not addressing the question'.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

when you are less than competent to discuss even a partial spectrum of these events

Yeah, when all else fails, declare the other guy incompetent.

Smooth farmer...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

experience is always a good teacher. All Ive been doing is reading your posts and am convinced of my conclusion.
Ive given you a couple fo suggested resources many pqges back and I dont see any AHaaas from you, nor any recognition of several of the terms or phrases involved.

I Just recognize in you, a default to ID as a "derived" conclusion when its actually a conclusion that you assume---"going in"

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I didn't realize that infinity was 10^50. Do you have a mathematical proof for that?

2 Replies

@parados,

That only 'seems' like infinity. LOL

0 Replies

@parados,

Hes parading his discovery of "Borel's LAw" as taken over by the Creationists.
I didnt realize that Leadfoos posted this BS recently . I recall when I commented on GUNGASNAKE 's "mathemtical improbability" of abiogenesis by extreme "probabilities"

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudomathematics

Extreme probabilities are neither impossible nor are they even falsifiable so its kind of a "it is because we say it is" proposition.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Extreme probabilities are neither impossible nor are they even falsifiable

No, they are not impossible. Some people do win the lottery. It's possible that one could win every week for their entire life. But would you bet your life on that happening? Would you even make the lottery your retirement plan?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Your calculation assumes that there is but one ribozyme as a"top molecule". The way life really qorked, it seemed , is that bazillions of polymers were randomly synthesized from thwir monomer nucleotides qnd isoprenes (To which youve formerly stipulated_. These many polymers are"selected in subsequent reactions" and undergo evolution before they are of the living state.
Now Im gonn ask you to read a paper by two guys named BARTEL qnd SZOSTAK . These guys set up nd alloqwed for the natural polymerization of nucleotides . They created maybe a BILLION or mopre in thwir lab over a fixed alloted time (I think it was 15 days at an STP) condition in a methanogenic environment, Over that peeriod of time aundreds acted as ribozymes (pre RNA's) and reacted to form even more nucleic acids . each sequence of ribozymes reacted, Bartel found that it took less and less time to create the next successive ribozymal compounds.
(In other words the stuff was evolving in the lab).

0 Replies

Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know